Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on January 06, 2009, 10:01:46 AM
-
He's right.
Commentary: Rick Warren foes aren't practicing tolerance
By Jordan Lorence
Special to CNN
Editor's note: Jordan Lorence is senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit organization of Christian attorneys. He has litigated religious liberty and free speech cases since 1984, including the Southworth case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1999, involving mandatory student fees at public universities, and a 2004 case that resulted in a California Supreme Court ruling that marriage licenses issued by San Francisco to same-sex couples were invalid.
SCOTTSDALE, Arizona (CNN) -- Proponents of redefining marriage couldn't wait for the new president to be sworn in before demanding that he erase from the inauguration ceremony a prominent American who disagrees with them.
The target of their rhetorical bombardment is Rick Warren, the popular Christian pastor from Southern California.
President-elect Barack Obama has asked Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. Not so fast, cries Kathryn Kolbert, head of People for the American Way, an organization that claims to advance equality and freedom of speech and religion (but not for Rick Warren and those who agree with his marriage views) in a piece published on CNN.com.
Warren's grave sin? Along with 52 percent of California voters, he supported California's Proposition 8, which affirmed the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. What a radical!
Though Warren will only be praying for the country's future (not giving a speech about marriage), Kolbert and others are pressuring Obama to set a precedent for his administration of publicly shunning someone who supports the traditional definition of marriage.
They want people like Warren silenced and ostracized for their "hate speech," defined today as disagreeing with their agenda to impose a redefinition of marriage on an unwilling America. Obama, to his credit, has resisted their strident demands.
The attacks on Warren are the latest in a series of coercive, intimidating attacks on supporters of traditional marriage.
Now, activists have ramped up their strong-arm tactics by pushing the president-elect to ban Warren from appearing at the inauguration.
This is amazingly audacious, in light of the fact that on marriage, the overwhelming majority of Americans and, indeed, humanity, agrees with Warren. Americans have voted to preserve marriage in all 30 states where it has been on the ballot by an average vote of more than 65 percent.
The collective experience and wisdom of every major civilization from the dawn of time agrees that societies function best and children are best protected when marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. Warren and those who agree with him want all nations to experience these benefits of marriage when it is rightly defined and consistently practiced.
Ironically, Obama has repeatedly stated that he agrees "that marriage is the union between a man and a woman." Does Kolbert question his fitness to serve as president in light of his allegedly "bigoted" views on marriage?
Kolbert brazenly denies that she and other activists desire to silence pastors like Warren because of their marriage views. She is indignant that Warren and others spread the "big lie" that redefining marriage would threaten the freedom of speech and religious liberties of those who hold the view shared by the vast majority of Americans.
Her argument is disarming in its pure duplicity. Part of Kolbert's case against Warren, who she thinks should not be speaking at such an important public ceremony, is that he believes that folks like her are working to ban people like him from speaking at public ceremonies. Thus, the "big lie" becomes an obvious truth.
This is really all about ideological purity -- and purging. Are the activists proposing that no one should be permitted to speak at the inauguration if they hold beliefs on marriage contrary to hers and her ideological bedfellows? How can publicly snubbing the influential and respected Warren advance what Kolbert calls "the values of unity and respect ... on which President-elect Obama campaigned?"
It won't. But it will surely send a message to those who believe in marriage, that they will be viciously attacked for expressing, or merely believing, that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. Ms. Kolbert provides just the latest example of how the forces of "tolerance" and "diversity" quickly abandon their principles of "live and let live" when somebody disagrees with them.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jordan Lorence.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/06/lorence.warren/index.html
-
AAAAAAAAMEN!!!!!
No presidental candidate, Democratic or Republican, has supported same-sex "marriage", though Obama is more likely to stand idly by and let his far-left supporters redefine marriage.
The great thing about the Prop. 8 issue in California is that it FINALLY unmasked these so-called poster boys for "tolerance" and
"diversity" as being anything but that.
We've seen the blacklisting, the church-vandalizing (except for black, Latino, and other churches of which gay activists are afraid), and the racial slurs (even toward black homosexuals) done by SOME of these folks. And, the more they show their behinds, the more they hurt their own cause.
-
I'm sure you can understand that it might be hard for some people to be tolerant of this guy after he basically said they were the equivalent of child molesters.
-
AAAAAAAAMEN!!!!!
No presidental candidate, Democratic or Republican, has supported same-sex "marriage", though Obama is more likely to stand idly by and let his far-left supporters redefine marriage.
The great thing about the Prop. 8 issue in California is that it FINALLY unmasked these so-called poster boys for "tolerance" and
"diversity" as being anything but that.
We've seen the blacklisting, the church-vandalizing (except for black, Latino, and other churches of which gay activists are afraid), and the racial slurs (even toward black homosexuals) done by SOME of these folks. And, the more they show their behinds, the more they hurt their own cause.
True. I find it troubling that people are attempting to call anyone who opposes not just the lifestyle but redefining marriage as a bigot or "homophobe."
-
True. I find it troubling that people are attempting to call anyone who opposes not just the lifestyle but redefining marriage as a bigot or "homophobe."
yeah the truth hurts
-
I love how the far lefties twist his words to fit their criticizms.
Warren clearly said he loves and respects all people. The Christian faith does not condone homosexuality...blame the faith, not Warren. Warren accepts and loves gays, which is farther along than many Christian leaders, he just re-states the opinion of the Christian faith.
Seems that the far lefties are the least tolerant people in this day and age.
-
I love how the far lefties twist his words to fit their criticizms.
Warren clearly said he loves and respects all people. The Christian faith does not condone homosexuality...blame the faith, not Warren. Warren accepts and loves gays, which is farther along than many Christian leaders, he just re-states the opinion of the Christian faith.
Seems that the far lefties are the least tolerant people in this day and age.
No need to twist his words.
-
I love how the far lefties twist his words to fit their criticizms.
Warren clearly said he loves and respects all people. The Christian faith does not condone homosexuality...blame the faith, not Warren. Warren accepts and loves gays, which is farther along than many Christian leaders, he just re-states the opinion of the Christian faith.
Seems that the far lefties are the least tolerant people in this day and age.
Warren is a good man. Very consistent.
Absolutely true that many of the people preaching tolerance on homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. are absolute hypocrites.
-
I'm sure you can understand that it might be hard for some people to be tolerant of this guy after he basically said they were the equivalent of child molesters.
Now Now Now straw, im not sure if you posted those videos to prove your point to shootfighter but no where in either of those videos is he saying that gays are the equivilant of child molestors...He said he is not in favor of changing the definition of marriage whether that be to include brother or sister, older guy and child and asked if that is equivilant to gays marrying. His intention was that it was equivilant b/c its a redefinition of marriage not to say gays are as bad as child molestors.
-
Now Now Now straw, im not sure if you posted those videos to prove your point to shootfighter but no where in either of those videos is he saying that gays are the equivilant of child molestors...He said he is not in favor of changing the definition of marriage whether that be to include brother or sister, older guy and child and asked if that is equivilant to gays marrying. His intention was that it was equivilant b/c its a redefinition of marriage not to say gays are as bad as child molestors.
I haven't actually watched them both fully but check out ~ 2 minutes in on the first video for the gay marriage is equivalent to incest comments
I'm breaking my own rules by posting during the work day.
He's conflating two issues - gay marriage (or whatever you want to call it) and siblings getting married.
If his only issue is "marriage" and he really has no problem with homosexuality then he must be in favor of incest provided they two siblings don't want to get married.....and we all know that aint' the case.
The second clip he again conflate homosexuality (which is what the host asked him about) with having multiple partners (again slightly changign the subject - then arguing against his own changed subject).
-
I haven't actually watched them both fully but check out ~ 2 minutes in on the first video for the gay marriage is equivalent to incest comments
I'm breaking my own rules by posting during the work day.
He's conflating two issues - gay marriage (or whatever you want to call it) and siblings getting married.
Not necessarily. One of the big arguments used by those supporting gay "marriage" is that the institution of marriage isn't really about having children.
If his only issue is "marriage" and he really has no problem with homosexuality then he must be in favor of incest provided they two siblings don't want to get married.....and we all know that aint' the case.
The same could be say for gay people and heteros who support gay "marriage". They'd have to be in favor of incest, too, especially if having children isn't really all that important in marriage. But, we all know that many gay "marriage" supporters think incest is wrong and would definitely be against two siblings trying to get married (even if it were two brothers or two sisters).
The second clip he again conflate homosexuality (which is what the host asked him about) with having multiple partners (again slightly changign the subject - then arguing against his own changed subject).
Saying that one group (gays) can re-define marriage to fit their “preference” but saying that other groups (pedophiles, polygamists, incestuous folks) can’t change marriage to fit their ‘preference’ is quite inconsistent on their part, as again there are many gay “marriage” advocates who deem pedophilia, polygamy, and incest as being morally wrong.
What would be the difference between two gay men (non-brothers) wanting to get "married" to each other and two gay brothers wanting to get "married" to each other?
-
I haven't actually watched them both fully but check out ~ 2 minutes in on the first video for the gay marriage is equivalent to incest comments
I'm breaking my own rules by posting during the work day.
He's conflating two issues - gay marriage (or whatever you want to call it) and siblings getting married.
If his only issue is "marriage" and he really has no problem with homosexuality then he must be in favor of incest provided they two siblings don't want to get married.....and we all know that aint' the case.
The second clip he again conflate homosexuality (which is what the host asked him about) with having multiple partners (again slightly changign the subject - then arguing against his own changed subject).
Now again your sniping at little bits and pieces and not taking in his entire point...He is not drawing a similarity between gays and child molestors in any other way then in saying that both would be the redefinition of marriage which he is against...HE IS NOT SAYING GAYS ARE AS BAD AS CHILD MOLESTORS.
In the second one he includes himself in that analogy as well so is he saying that he is as bad a gays? No he is making a point that actions that are genetic predispositions that are not beneficial to oneself or to society may need to be delt with by the individual and that it would not be a reason in his mind to be in favor of gay marriage.
You arent looking at his entire point your picking and choosing and this is why you are misunderstanding him.
-
Not necessarily. One of the big arguments used by those supporting gay "marriage" is that the institution of marriage isn't really about having children.
The same could be say for gay people and heteros who support gay "marriage". They'd have to be in favor of incest, too, especially if having children isn't really all that important in marriage. But, we all know that many gay "marriage" supporters think incest is wrong and would definitely be against two siblings trying to get married (even if it were two brothers or two sisters).
Saying that one group (gays) can re-define marriage to fit their “preference” but saying that other groups (pedophiles, polygamists, incestuous folks) can’t change marriage to fit their ‘preference’ is quite inconsistent on their part, as again there are many gay “marriage” advocates who deem pedophilia, polygamy, and incest as being morally wrong.
What would be the difference between two gay men (non-brothers) wanting to get "married" to each other and two gay brothers wanting to get "married" to each other?
exactly thats the point he is making not saying that gays are child molestors or as bad as child molestors only that he is not in favor of redefining marriage for anything other than one man and one woman of age.
-
Now again your sniping at little bits and pieces and not taking in his entire point...He is not drawing a similarity between gays and child molestors in any other way then in saying that both would be the redefinition of marriage which he is against...HE IS NOT SAYING GAYS ARE AS BAD AS CHILD MOLESTORS.
In the second one he includes himself in that analogy as well so is he saying that he is as bad a gays? No he is making a point that actions that are genetic predispositions that are not beneficial to oneself or to society may need to be delt with by the individual and that it would not be a reason in his mind to be in favor of gay marriage.
You arent looking at his entire point your picking and choosing and this is why you are misunderstanding him.
And gays are not saying that Adults should marry children or siblings should marry each other.
This is a classic diversion tactic. He redefines the argument and then pretends that they are somehow equivalent.
-
And gays are not saying that Adults should marry children or siblings should marry each other.
This is a classic diversion tactic. He redefines the argument and then pretends that they are somehow equivalent.
There’s no diversion, here. If two gay guys, who happened to be brothers, wanted to get married, most gay “marriage” advocates would say that was WRONG!!!
But, why would it be wrong? They can't have kids (regular or deformed) together, and as many gay "marriage" advocates argue, procreation isn't a big issue in marriage.
So why would they deny two "adults in a loving committed relationship" the "right to marry", simply because they happen to share at least one parent?
The point is, once again, that gays want the proverbial cake and wish to eat it, too. If they can re-define marriage to suit their desire, then so can incestous people, pedophiles, and polygamists. And, if gays think otherwise, that makes them the very bigots that they claim people, who believe marriage is a one-man-one-woman union, are.
-
again - classic conflation
2 brothers getting married has nothing to do with two adult people of the same sex who want to get married.
No comparison (although I know Warren and other try to make one).
Personally, I don't care who wants to get married (provided they are adults of course).
Make no difference to me at all
-
again - classic conflation
2 brothers getting married has nothing to do with two adult people of the same sex who want to get married.
No comparison (although I know Warren and other try to make one).
The brothers, in the example I used, are TWO ADULT PEOPLE of the same sex who want to get married.
Once again, why is that wrong to gay "marriage" advocates, if procreation isn't an issue?
Personally, I don't care who wants to get married (provided they are adults of course).
Make no difference to me at all
Again, why do they have to be adults?
-
The brothers, in the example I used, are TWO ADULT PEOPLE of the same sex who want to get married.
Once again, why is that wrong to gay "marriage" advocates, if procreation isn't an issue?
Again, why do they have to be adults?
yeah - I understand that brothers are two adults
like I said, personally it makes no difference to me.
You don't really need me to explain why they have to be adults and not children do you??
-
Straw He is not comparing the behavior of gays to child molesters, you are missing his point.
-
Straw He is not comparing the behavior of gays to child molesters, you are missing his point.
I pretty sure I get his point (but I'm open to more discussion - just busy at work).
I just don't buy the comparison and I don't think it's valid.
-
I'm sure you can understand that it might be hard for some people to be tolerant of this guy after he basically said they were the equivalent of child molesters.
He did not say that. You are twisting his words.
-
yeah - I understand that brothers are two adults
like I said, personally it makes no difference to me.
You don't really need me to explain why they have to be adults and not children do you??
The point is that you are arguing to definitions that aren't equal.
Many people think that state marriage is the same as religious marriage.
They are not.
If his church views gay marriage as wrong then so be it. He is right to do what he thinks since his church answers to God not to the state.
There are plenty of churches that allow gay marriage.
The state can institute gay marriage, since the definition a state uses is a legal and not a religious definition of marriage.
A state marriage has no religious implication and a church passing judgment on what the state does should have no bearing on the law.
-
The point is that you are arguing to definitions that aren't equal.
Many people think that state marriage is the same as religious marriage.
They are not.
If his church views gay marriage as wrong then so be it. He is right to do what he thinks since his church answers to God not to the state.
There are plenty of churches that allow gay marriage.
The state can institute gay marriage, since the definition a state uses is a legal and not a religious definition of marriage.
A state marriage has no religious implication and a church passing judgment on what the state does should have no bearing on the law.
good points but it's even simplier.
In the second clip the interviewer asks him about homosexuality and whether he would change his posistion (what is it exactly) if it was proven to be biological. He takes that and goes on to conflate sexuality with someone who "struggles" with anger or shyness or alcohol (as if those are proven to be biological). He simply changes the context and makes an absurd comparison and then pretends that he has addressed the original question
toward the end of that clip he conflates homosexuality with promiscuity (again implying they are one and the same) and then saying that people should be mature and "reign in" those urges.
It's the same tactic over and over again.
-
And gays are not saying that Adults should marry children or siblings should marry each other.
This is a classic diversion tactic. He redefines the argument and then pretends that they are somehow equivalent.
His point is that he doesnt want to redifine marriage, not for gays, not for brothers or sisters, not for older and younger couples either. NOT THAT GAYS ARE CHILD MOLESTORS.
again - classic conflation
2 brothers getting married has nothing to do with two adult people of the same sex who want to get married.
No comparison (although I know Warren and other try to make one).
Personally, I don't care who wants to get married (provided they are adults of course).
Make no difference to me at all
would letting 2 brothers get married redefine marriage?
would letting gays marry redefine marriage?
wouldd letting an older person and a younger person marry redefine marriage?
Then yes they are equivilant in that sense, how do you not understand that? He is not saying that being gay is as bad as incest or child molestation.
-
good points but it's even simplier.
In the second clip the interviewer asks him about homosexuality and whether he would change his posistion (what is it exactly) if it was proven to be biological. He takes that and goes on to conflate sexuality with someone who "struggles" with anger or shyness or alcohol (as if those are proven to be biological). He simply changes the context and makes an absurd comparison and then pretends that he has addressed the original question
toward the end of that clip he conflates homosexuality with promiscuity (again implying they are one and the same) and then saying that people should be mature and "reign in" those urges.
It's the same tactic over and over again.
LOL oh my fuking goodness your doing this to piss ppl off arent you? you are seriously not this retarded bro i know this to be a fact.
The reason she asks the question is b/c she wants to know that if its not the persons "choice" to be gay would it change his mind on gay marriage. In other words if they are predispositioned to it genitically then you really cant hold it agaisnt them right?
He points out that certain ppl are genitically predipositioned to being easier to anger or being shy or introverted which is certainly true. Although these actions maybe genetic doesnt mean that they are the right thing to do and that if the actions arent beneficial to oneself or society then the actions should be delt with. DO YOU SERIOUSLY NOT UNDERSTAND THIS STRAW?
In the response to the second question he is referring to certain gay ppl NOT THE GAY COMMUNITY. He also says that HE HAS THE URGE TO HAVE MULTIPLE PARTNERS again to illustrate the point that behaviors that arent beneficial should be reigned in.
you are twisting words bro either you have not listened to either clip or you have something personal against this man or his views on gay marriage, this is a bad spin job bro.
-
LOL oh my fuking goodness your doing this to piss ppl off arent you? you are seriously not this retarded bro i know this to be a fact.
The reason she asks the question is b/c she wants to know that if its not the persons "choice" to be gay would it change his mind on gay marriage. In other words if they are predispositioned to it genitically then you really cant hold it agaisnt them right?
He points out that certain ppl are genitically predipositioned to being easier to anger or being shy or introverted which is certainly true. Although these actions maybe genetic doesnt mean that they are the right thing to do and that if the actions arent beneficial to oneself or society then the actions should be delt with. DO YOU SERIOUSLY NOT UNDERSTAND THIS STRAW?
In the response to the second question he is referring to certain gay ppl NOT THE GAY COMMUNITY. He also says that HE HAS THE URGE TO HAVE MULTIPLE PARTNERS again to illustrate the point that behaviors that arent beneficial should be reigned in.
you are twisting words bro either you have not listened to either clip or you have something personal against this man or his views on gay marriage, this is a bad spin job bro.
I'll listen to the clips when I get home and then respond back.
-
No need to twist his words.
I love how Ann Curry is just seething with ANGER as she interviews Warren.
-
LOL oh my fuking goodness your doing this to piss ppl off arent you? you are seriously not this retarded bro i know this to be a fact.
The reason she asks the question is b/c she wants to know that if its not the persons "choice" to be gay would it change his mind on gay marriage. In other words if they are predispositioned to it genitically then you really cant hold it agaisnt them right?
He points out that certain ppl are genitically predipositioned to being easier to anger or being shy or introverted which is certainly true. Although these actions maybe genetic doesnt mean that they are the right thing to do and that if the actions arent beneficial to oneself or society then the actions should be delt with. DO YOU SERIOUSLY NOT UNDERSTAND THIS STRAW?
In the response to the second question he is referring to certain gay ppl NOT THE GAY COMMUNITY. He also says that HE HAS THE URGE TO HAVE MULTIPLE PARTNERS again to illustrate the point that behaviors that arent beneficial should be reigned in.
you are twisting words bro either you have not listened to either clip or you have something personal against this man or his views on gay marriage, this is a bad spin job bro.
Okay, I've watched the first clip again
I have only one question: Does Rick Warren think that gay marriage is equivalent to incestual marriage?
-
Okay, I've watched the first clip again
I have only one question: Does Rick Warren think that gay marriage is equivalent to incestual marriage?
Again would gay marriage redefine marriage? yes it would
Would incestual marriage redefine marriage? yes it would
Would marriage between a man and a child redefine marriage? yes it would
so in the sense that they would all redefine marriage yes they are equivilant, now morally equivilant iono he never commented on that aspect which is why your first interpretation was wrong.
-
Again would gay marriage redefine marriage? yes it would
Would incestual marriage redefine marriage? yes it would
Would marriage between a man and a child redefine marriage? yes it would
so in the sense that they would all redefine marriage yes they are equivilant, now morally equivilant iono he never commented on that aspect which is why your first interpretation was wrong.
ok - so basically ANY definition of marriage other Rick Warrens definition is equivalent to incestual marriage or any other totally unheard of form of marriage?
-
LOL oh my fuking goodness your doing this to piss ppl off arent you? you are seriously not this retarded bro i know this to be a fact.
The reason she asks the question is b/c she wants to know that if its not the persons "choice" to be gay would it change his mind on gay marriage. In other words if they are predispositioned to it genitically then you really cant hold it agaisnt them right?
He points out that certain ppl are genitically predipositioned to being easier to anger or being shy or introverted which is certainly true. Although these actions maybe genetic doesnt mean that they are the right thing to do and that if the actions arent beneficial to oneself or society then the actions should be delt with. DO YOU SERIOUSLY NOT UNDERSTAND THIS STRAW?
In the response to the second question he is referring to certain gay ppl NOT THE GAY COMMUNITY. He also says that HE HAS THE URGE TO HAVE MULTIPLE PARTNERS again to illustrate the point that behaviors that arent beneficial should be reigned in.
you are twisting words bro either you have not listened to either clip or you have something personal against this man or his views on gay marriage, this is a bad spin job bro.
So being shy has been proven to be genetically predispositioned?
I wasn't aware that had been proven
If you watch this clip again you'll see no mention of marriage
the discussion is all about sexuality and genetics and Warren vears off on trying somehow compare sexuality to an emotion (anger , fear or shyness) or the compulsion to drink beer
and then changes the subject from homosexuality to promiscuity
notice he keeps trying to make comparisons and then pretend that he's addressed the original topic.
-
ok - so basically ANY definition of marriage other Rick Warrens definition is equivalent to incestual marriage or any other totally unheard of form of marriage?
Any other definition of marriage other than what it is defined as now would be a redefinition of marriage would it not? He is making a point that he is against the redefinition of marriage no matter what.
LOL again you are making it seem like he means morally the same, but AGAIN THATS NOT WHAT HE IS IMPLYING. as far as that clip goes
You are twisting words bro and its sad to see...you are one of the level headed ppl on the board not the spin happy retards i.e. 240.
-
So being shy has been proven to be genetically predispositioned?
I wasn't aware that had been proven
If you watch this clip again you'll see no mention of marriage
the discussion is all about sexuality and genetics and Warren vears off on trying somehow compare sexuality to an emotion (anger , fear or shyness) or the compulsion to drink beer
and then changes the subject from homosexuality to promiscuity
notice he keeps trying to make comparisons and then pretend that he's addressed the original topic.
I wish i could find the whole interview b/c im pretty sure this is in response to gay marriage.
its her not him you retard that takes the discussion that direction saying that homosexuality is biological, so is a predisposition to anger, introversion, extroversion and so is multiple sex partners for men. Just b/c its a natural thing doesnt mean its what best or that its right does it?
oh my fuking goodness he is drawing a similarity between natural impulses and being gay if it is genetic i.e. natural he is addressing the question the host asked. WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?, are you smoking shit right now?
he did address the original topic
-
the reason he brings up the topic of anger and shyness even your example of beer drinking or alcholism is b/c they to are believed to be genetic as well just like the host posed in her question about gays...he states that even if a impulse is natural doesnt make it right.
HE DOES ADDRESS HER QUESTION QUITE ELOQUENTLY
-
Any other definition of marriage other than what it is defined as now would be a redefinition of marriage would it not? He is making a point that he is against the redefinition of marriage no matter what.
LOL again you are making it seem like he means morally the same, but AGAIN THATS NOT WHAT HE IS IMPLYING. as far as that clip goes
You are twisting words bro and its sad to see...you are one of the level headed ppl on the board not the spin happy retards i.e. 240.
I never mentioned morals
I listened to Warren and like you and everyone I'm trying to understand what he is saying
-
I wish i could find the whole interview b/c im pretty sure this is in response to gay marriage.
its her not him you retard that takes the discussion that direction saying that homosexuality is biological, so is a predisposition to anger, introversion, extroversion and so is multiple sex partners for men. Just b/c its a natural thing doesnt mean its what best or that its right does it?
oh my fuking goodness he is drawing a similarity between natural impulses and being gay if it is genetic i.e. natural he is addressing the question the host asked. WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?, are you smoking shit right now?
he did address the original topic
she asks "if" it's proven to be biological
and he pretends that being angry, fearful or shy IS biological
and then pretends that being shy (an emotion) is the same a being gay (sexual identity)
that is a basic STRAW MAN argument
a favorite of the far right and the ironic purpose of my screen name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
-
You are twisting words bro and its sad to see...you are one of the level headed ppl on the board not the spin happy retards i.e. 240.
???
-
I never mentioned morals
I listened to Warren and like you and everyone I'm trying to understand what he is saying
right you never mentioned morals HOWEVER...ok - so basically ANY definition of marriage other Rick Warrens definition is equivalent to incestual marriage or any other totally unheard of form of marriage?
this implies it to a certain degree
-
she asks "if" it's proven to be biological
and he pretends that being angry, fearful or shy IS biological
and then pretends that being shy (an emotion) is the same a being gay (sexual identity)
that is a basic STRAW MAN argument
a favorite of the far right and the ironic purpose of my screen name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
LOL pretends hahah bro do some research some ppl are genetically predispositioned to be easier to anger etc...
same as being predispositioned genetically to addiction i.e. alcoholism
do yourself a favor and research this and then maybe you will have a clearer understanding of his point.
-
further more being gay is not sexual identity it is sexual preference.
-
LOL pretends hahah bro do some research some ppl are genetically predispositioned to be easier to anger etc...
same as being predispositioned genetically to addiction i.e. alcoholism
do yourself a favor and research this and then maybe you will have a clearer understanding of his point.
feel free to list anything that actually proves your point(s)
1. show me the proof that being "prone" to anger is genetic
2. explain what that has to do with sexuality
-
further more being gay is not sexual identity it is sexual preference.
what does "preference" mean?
does it imply "choice"?
(btw - I already don't care either way - it makes no difference to me whether it's a choice not.)
-
feel free to list anything that actually proves your point(s)
1. show me the proof that being "prone" to anger is genetic
2. explain what that has to do with sexuality
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro04/web2/apatel.html
read up a little
Again if homosexuality is genetic like she proposed you can compare it to other genetic predispositions can you not?
first answer that and ill go on.
-
what does "preference" mean?
does it imply "choice"?
(btw - I already don't care either way - it makes no difference to me whether it's a choice not.)
no it doesnt mean choice, it simply means what you prefer...sexual identity is what you see yourself as either male or female or other.
LOL man i had to increase to 400% to read that shit.
-
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro04/web2/apatel.html
read up a little
Again if homosexuality is genetic like she proposed you can compare it to other genetic predispositions can you not?
first answer that and ill go on.
I don't care whether it's genetic
Warren seems to be saying it is
and then pretending that being shy is the same thing
did you notice that?
-
I don't care whether it's genetic
Warren seems to be saying it is
and then pretending that being shy is the same thing
did you notice that?
well it is thought to be genetic at least to some extent...I do notice he is making a comparison a legitimate comparison, if being gay and shy or being quick to violence, or alcoholism are all genetic then you can have a conversation about all three at the same time if it involves genetics which she introduced into the conversation what part do you not understand im gonna lay it out real easy here
homosexuality=genetic
more violent=genetic
Introversion=genetic
If a person is expected to overcome there genetic predisposition to violence or introversion then why not homosexuality?
-
well it is thought to be genetic at least to some extent...I do notice he is making a comparison a legitimate comparison, if being gay and shy or being quick to violence, or alcoholism are all genetic then you can have a conversation about all three at the same time if it involves genetics which she introduced into the conversation what part do you not understand im gonna lay it out real easy here
homosexuality=genetic
more violent=genetic
Introversion=genetic
If a person is expected to overcome there genetic predisposition to violence or introversion then why not homosexuality?
homosexuality = more violent = introversion
all the same?
all bad?
all the same? (I should have made that last sentence really small)
all "proven" to be genetic?
-
homosexuality = more violent = introversion
all the same?
all bad?
all the same? (I should have made that last sentence really small)
all "proven" to be genetic?
LOL what you have some problem you think that if 2 things are mentioned in the same sentence they are being compared in every possible way.
they are all believed to have a genetic component and if you are expected to overcome certain genetic traits and not others then you need more reasoning to say homosexuality is ok simply b/c it is genetic which is what she basically asked.
-
basically he is saying just b/c there maybe a genetic component to it doesnt make it ok...Males have a genetic predisposition to mate with more than one female but just b/c its genetic doesnt make it ok to do so...get it?
-
LOL what you have some problem you think that if 2 things are mentioned in the same sentence they are being compared in every possible way.
they are all believed to have a genetic component and if you are expected to overcome certain genetic traits and not others then you need more reasoning to say homosexuality is ok simply b/c it is genetic which is what she basically asked.
so you're saying if Warren conflates feeling shy with homosexuality I shouldn't think they are the same thing
also that being shy isn't a bad thing
but still something that must be "struggled" against
It's all starting to make sense
thanks
-
so you're saying if Warren conflates feeling shy with homosexuality I shouldn't think they are the same thing
also that being shy isn't a bad thing
but still something that must be "struggled" against
It's all starting to make sense
thanks
LOL are you doing the spaces thing again?
being extremely shy can be a bad thing just like being extremely violent but he is not conflating the idea that homosexuality is bad at least not in this instance only conflating that they all have a genetic component...NO THEY ARE NOT THE SAME but they do have things in common i.e. genetic predisposition.
If you are expected to overcome violent tendencies then you logically could be expected to overcome homosexual tendencies, you understand? So therefore you need more reasoning to be ok with homosexuality then simply genetics.
-
LOL are you doing the spaces thing again?
being extremely shy can be a bad thing just like being extremely violent but he is not conflating the idea that homosexuality is bad at least not in this instance only conflating that they all have a genetic component...NO THEY ARE NOT THE SAME but they do have things in common i.e. genetic predisposition.
If you are expected to overcome violent tendencies then you logically could be expected to overcome homosexual tendencies, you understand? So therefore you need more reasoning to be ok with homosexuality then simply genetics.
I don't see any spaces or empty space
can you explain how a preference is different from a choice?
thanks
-
LOL are you doing the spaces thing again?
being extremely shy can be a bad thing just like being extremely violent but he is not conflating the idea that homosexuality is bad at least not in this instance only conflating that they all have a genetic component...NO THEY ARE NOT THE SAME but they do have things in common i.e. genetic predisposition.
If you are expected to overcome violent tendencies then you logically could be expected to overcome homosexual tendencies, you understand? So therefore you need more reasoning to be ok with homosexuality then simply genetics.
this is exactly what I'm looking for
please elaborate
thanks
-
I don't see any spaces or empty space
can you explain how a preference is different from a choice?
thanks
sure i know the concepts seem real similar they did to me as well when it was explained to me in my psychology classes. Sexual preference would be the ppl/things you find attractive mainly inately attractive as in not of choice...Some ppl have a sexual preference for males some females some both...many men have a sexual preference toward big breasts or big asses. Choice can coincide with or go against sexual preference a person could be gay but choose to be with someone of the opposite sex.
Kinda like sex and gender those two get mixed up a lot as well.
sex being what you biologically are
and gender being what you see yourself as.
-
this is exactly what I'm looking for
please elaborate
thanks
if you look at studies that have been done most behavior which includes introversion and homosexuality can be linked back to some extent to biological basis...Most psychiatrist believe that the nature vs. nurture is obsolete and its actually a combination of both. For example a person even though they maybe genetically predispositioned to violence if not raised in a enviroment that provokes or that allows it wont be violent or will be less violent more than likely.
Im not sure what you want me to elaborate on?
-
sure i know the concepts seem real similar they did to me as well when it was explained to me in my psychology classes. Sexual preference would be the ppl/things you find attractive mainly inately attractive as in not of choice...Some ppl have a sexual preference for males some females some both...many men have a sexual preference toward big breasts or big asses. Choice can coincide with or go against sexual preference a person could be gay but choose to be with someone of the opposite sex.
Kinda like sex and gender those two get mixed up a lot as well.
sex being what you biologically are
and gender being what you see yourself as.
are some "choices" bad?
Is my self-destructive "choice" or "innate" attraction to big titties and the women who have them .... bad?
I'm pretty sure God is OK with it
-
are some "choices" bad?
Is my self-destructive "choice" or "innate" attraction to big titties and the women who have them .... bad?
I'm pretty sure God is OK with it
LOL well bad is a subjective term i would say no of course though I liked de big ole titties myself.
-
so we agree
-
so we agree
LOL agree on what?
-
LOL agree on what?
right
-
LOL are you doing the spaces thing again?
being extremely shy can be a bad thing just like being extremely violent but he is not conflating the idea that homosexuality is bad at least not in this instance only conflating that they all have a genetic component...NO THEY ARE NOT THE SAME but they do have things in common i.e. genetic predisposition.
If you are expected to overcome violent tendencies then you logically could be expected to overcome homosexual tendencies, you understand? So therefore you need more reasoning to be ok with homosexuality then simply genetics.
No I don't understand this at all.
You've decided that "homosexual tendencies" are the same as violoent tendencies.
Of course no one would argue that violent tendencies are bad but that has nothing to do with homosexuality.
this is exactly the same technique that Warren tries to use.
-
No I don't understand this at all.
You've decided that "homosexual tendencies" are the same as violoent tendencies.
Of course no one would argue that violent tendencies are bad but that has nothing to do with homosexuality.
this is exactly the same technique that Warren tries to use.
Interesting now its a morality argument.
Many Christians do believe that homosexuality is far worse then violence.
The fact that God leveled Sodom over homosexual acts is a key example of this.
Heck many American Christians view sex outside of marriage as far worse a moral sin then violence.
Look at how movies and video games are rated in the US.
I don't agree with this though.
The church I attend the most, marries gay people and I like boobies in my comedies.
-
No I don't understand this at all.
You've decided that "homosexual tendencies" are the same as violoent tendencies.
Of course no one would argue that violent tendencies are bad but that has nothing to do with homosexuality.
this is exactly the same technique that Warren tries to use.
again you are injecting morality into it, the question was would you change your mind if homosexuality was genetic just like a genetic predisposition to violence. Now if it is socially unacceptable to be violent even though it may be genetic why should it be socially acceptable to be gay simply b/c its genetic? so is being violent, you get it? You need more reasoning then simply its genetic and natural so its ok b/c so is being violent or being shy or having an addictive behavior and we are expected to overcome those.
-
No I don't understand this at all.
You've decided that "homosexual tendencies" are the same as violoent tendencies.
Of course no one would argue that violent tendencies are bad but that has nothing to do with homosexuality.
this is exactly the same technique that Warren tries to use.
they are the same in the respect that they both have a genetic compound, what part of that do you not understand first and then we will move on? If you concede that then they do have something to do with homosexuality.
-
again you are injecting morality into it, the question was would you change your mind if homosexuality was genetic just like a genetic predisposition to violence. Now if it is socially unacceptable to be violent even though it may be genetic why should it be socially acceptable to be gay simply b/c its genetic? so is being violent, you get it? You need more reasoning then simply its genetic and natural so its ok b/c so is being violent or being shy or having an addictive behavior and we are expected to overcome those.
How am I injecting morality?
I believe you made the comparison of homosexality to violence.
Who said violence it genetic and even if it is how does one compare that to any other random genetic trait - such as hair color or sexuality. You've only used that because most people would agree that violence is "bad" and then try to pretend that therefore homosexuality must also be "bad"
let me be clear on my position. I don't care if homosexuality is genetic or a choice or a blend of the two.
I don't see it as wrong or immoral or sin (which I think is Warrens implication).
-
they are the same in the respect that they both have a genetic compound, what part of that do you not understand first and then we will move on? If you concede that then they do have something to do with homosexuality.
I don't know that violence has a genetic component and even if it did it still has no relevence to compare it to homosexuality.
-
You've only used that because most people would agree that violence is "bad" and then try to pretend that therefore homosexuality must also be "bad"
Yeah... violence is HARMFUL TO OTHERS. That is the difference. Whether it has grounding in a genetic predisposition makes no difference. As you've stated, alcoholism and other addictions have genetic components, but with the exception of illegal drugs, they are only illegal when they result in a disruption of society.
Marriage between gays doesn't effect anyone other than the participants of the union.The analogy is flawed.
-
I don't know that violence has a genetic component and even if it did it still has no relevence to compare it to homosexuality.
oh my goodness it does have a genetic compound and when the question posed is about genetic predisposition and behavior, they are both behaviors that can be attributed to genetic predispositions so YES IT DOES MAKE IT RELEVANT do you understand it now?
-
Yeah... violence is HARMFUL TO OTHERS. That is the difference. Whether it has grounding in a genetic predisposition makes no difference. As you've stated, alcoholism and other addictions have genetic components, but with the exception of illegal drugs, they are only illegal when they result in a disruption of society.
Marriage between gays doesn't effect anyone other than the participants of the union.The analogy is flawed.
oh but it does, it affects every religious person or otherwise that believes marriage is between a man and a woman in that it goes against their core beliefs.
-
That's like saying the civil rights movement effected every white person who had to share a water fountain or a restaurant counter with a magical negro.
They are not being affected at all. If gay marriage came to pass in the greater US and this weakened any heterosexual marriages, those marriages had way more problems going on in them anyway.
-
Yeah... violence is HARMFUL TO OTHERS. That is the difference. Whether it has grounding in a genetic predisposition makes no difference. As you've stated, alcoholism and other addictions have genetic components, but with the exception of illegal drugs, they are only illegal when they result in a disruption of society.
Marriage between gays doesn't effect anyone other than the participants of the union.The analogy is flawed.
I don't care about the marriage argument.
Warren is talking about homosexuality in general. Just it's mere existence is "bad" although he's been trying to re-frame his position now that he's got this high profile gig.
-
In that case, the argument is even more flawed.
-
oh my goodness it does have a genetic compound and when the question posed is about genetic predisposition and behavior, they are both behaviors that can be attributed to genetic predispositions so YES IT DOES MAKE IT RELEVANT do you understand it now?
No I don't understand your point and I've tried repeatedly to explain why
are you referring to the 2nd interview?
If so, the woman only asked about homosexuality.
Warren is the one who then brings up "fear, hate, shyness" and try to pretend they are the same thing as homosexuality and then trys to conflate that to homosexulity as something one should struggle against.
Certainly, if one is prone to violence that would be something to struggle and keep in control but that has nothing to do with sexuality. This is where we're not in agreement
btw - why do you keep assuming that violence is a genetic predisposition?
-
That's like saying the civil rights movement effected every white person who had to share a water fountain or a restaurant counter with a magical negro.
They are not being affected at all. If gay marriage came to pass in the greater US and this weakened any heterosexual marriages, those marriages had way more problems going on in them anyway.
I dont remember the bible saying slavery is good, do you?
They are affected b/c marriage is a RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION which is why the vast majority of marriages take place in front of a RELIGIOUS PERSON i.e. pastor, priest etc...Defining marriage again a religious institution as something that includes what many religious ppl view as bad does affect them.
-
In that case, the argument is even more flawed.
apparently until very recently (like in the past two weeks) the Saddleback website had this statement:
"someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church."
Gee I wonder why Warren is now making these tortured and convoluted explanations of what he really believes
-
Does someone cheating on their wife effect these religious folks?
Does someone having a child out-of-wedlock effect these religious folks?
Does someone taking the lord's name in vain effect these religious folks?
Other than upsetting their genteel sensibilities, none of these things, along with the active practice of homosexuality, effect them.Unless, of course, they insist on sticking their noses where they don't belong.
-
No I don't understand your point and I've tried repeatedly to explain why
are you referring to the 2nd interview?
If so, the woman only asked about homosexuality.
Warren is the one who then brings up "fear, hate, shyness" and try to pretend they are the same thing as homosexuality and then trys to conflate that to homosexulity as something one should struggle against.
Certainly, if one is prone to violence that would be something to struggle and keep in control but that has nothing to do with sexuality. This is where we're not in agreement
btw - why do you keep assuming that violence is a genetic predisposition?
GEZZZ i really pegged you smarter than this straw...you ever take a logic class in college?
She brings up homosexuality in the aspect of behavior and genetic predisposition and in that context yes homosexuality and quickness to violence can be talked about in the same conversation. HOW DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?
Again i gave you an article about it, do some research straw violence is thought to have a genetic component to it. I am not assuming anything it is you who are assuming.
-
Does someone cheating on their wife effect these religious folks?
Does someone having a child out-of-wedlock effect these religious folks?
Does someone taking the lord's name in vain effect these religious folks?
Other than upsetting their genteel sensibilities, none of these things, along with the active practice of homosexuality, effect them.Unless, of course, they insist on sticking their noses where they don't belong.
Yes it does affect these folks
Iono about the second im not sure if child out of wedlock isnt a relatively new concept
Yes it does affect these folks
they affect them b/c they deal with their beliefs
by your logic someone going on a rampage and killing ppl in the name of god shouldnt affect them either.
Again religious institution
-
What!!! Killing someone is murder! Of course it affects people.
That doesn't even make sense. Having to deal with others living their lives does not effect you... unless you are a busybody sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.
-
What!!! Killing someone is murder! Of course it affects people.
That doesn't even make sense. Having to deal with others living their lives does not effect you... unless you are a busybody sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.
if you dont know the person mudered then how does it affect you?
having a child out of wedlock certainly affects the child doesnt it?
cheating on a wife certainly affects the wife doesnt it?
Using the Lords name in vein certainly affects the religious ppl around doesnt it?
your logic is flawed bro.
If you believe that none of the examples you gave have any effect on religious ppl then by using your logic either would somebody going on a killing spree in gods name either.
-
I dont remember the bible saying slavery is good, do you?
They are affected b/c marriage is a RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION which is why the vast majority of marriages take place in front of a RELIGIOUS PERSON i.e. pastor, priest etc...Defining marriage again a religious institution as something that includes what many religious ppl view as bad does affect them.
When did we start talking about slavery?
Marriage is not strictly a religious institution but let's not even talk about marriage.
Warren's point is that he thinks being gay is somehow the equivalent to being shy or drinking too much, namely it's a problem that needs to be "struggled against" and that homosexuals are just immature and need to grow up.
-
GEZZZ i really pegged you smarter than this straw...you ever take a logic class in college?
She brings up homosexuality in the aspect of behavior and genetic predisposition and in that context yes homosexuality and quickness to violence can be talked about in the same conversation. HOW DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?
Again i gave you an article about it, do some research straw violence is thought to have a genetic component to it. I am not assuming anything it is you who are assuming.
I missed the link to the article you mention but to your question my point is that it's not a valid comparison.
Assuming being gay is genetic why then make the comparison to violent tendencies (which you still haven't shown me is genetic but maybe that's the article you mean).
Why not pick some other benign genetic tendency the hair color or perhaps a genetic gift such as a great singing voice. He CHOOSES to compare it to something that he thinks is bad
I don't remember Warren making the comparison to violent tendencies but he did choose other tendencies which he perceives to be BAD so that he can then say that they are just like being gay which is also bad.
This is the point that I think you keep missing.
-
When did we start talking about slavery?
Marriage is not strictly a religious institution but let's not even talk about marriage.
Warren's point is that he thinks being gay is somehow the equivalent to being shy or drinking too much, namely it's a problem that needs to be "struggled against" and that homosexuals are just immature and need to grow up.
that was in response to doggity's post not yours
it is equivilant in the respect they are all behaviors that are effected by genetic predisposition, again tell me what part you dont understand or dont agree with and we will work on that first.
-
I missed the link to the article you mention but to your question my point is that it's not a valid comparison.
Assuming being gay is genetic why then make the comparison to violent tendencies (which you still haven't shown me is genetic but maybe that's the article you mean).
Why not pick some other benign genetic tendency the hair color or perhaps a genetic gift such as a great singing voice. He CHOOSES to compare it to something that he thinks is bad
I don't remember Warren making the comparison to violent tendencies but he did choose other tendencies which he perceives to be BAD so that he can then say that they are just like being gay which is also bad.
This is the point that I think you keep missing.
Again you keep saying ASSUMING Im not assuming you are, research it and then you will understand the validity of his comparison. look at it from his point of view and you will see the reasoning for his stand on this subject.
I understand that point but again bad is a subjective term.
It should be no suprise that warren is not in favor of homosexuality
-
Again you keep saying ASSUMING Im not assuming you are, research it and then you will understand the validity of his comparison. look at it from his point of view and you will see the reasoning for his stand on this subject.
I understand that point but again bad is a subjective term.
It should be no suprise that warren is not in favor of homosexuality
did warren compare homosexuality to violent tendencies. I though you made that one?
I only remember him comparing it to shyness, fear, anger, etc...
Why should I agree that an ostensibly negative trait is a valid comparison?
-
Again you keep saying ASSUMING Im not assuming you are, research it and then you will understand the validity of his comparison. look at it from his point of view and you will see the reasoning for his stand on this subject.
I understand that point but again bad is a subjective term.
It should be no suprise that warren is not in favor of homosexuality
that's the point
he can be against it but nobody has to agree with his assinine comparisons
-
Most medical experts believe homosexuality is multifactorial in origin. There is very likely a genetic component in many cases, though its been hard to specifically identify, but there are significant learned and environmental influences as well. You can see it all over pop culture with young females where its cool to mess around with other girls when your wasted. Another example, more kids that are unaccepted/shuned by their peers early on or victims of some kind of abuse are more likely to be homosexuals.
I believe in some cases its purely genetic. In other cases, there may be an influenceable state.
Nonetheless, Warren is a Christian minister and is echoing the beliefs of his faith...actually, if you listen to him, he is more liberal than many ministers and he is very tolerant. He mostly preaches love and acceptance.
-
I agree that he did not use the best words to explain his position but he is clearly not comparing the specific acts or behaviors of homosexuals with others. He is trying to defend marriage in its traditional definition, which is his opinion, the opinion of the majority of Americans, and the opinion of the incoming president. Case closed IMO. Warren is a good choice for Obama's invocation.
-
Most medical experts believe homosexuality is multifactorial in origin. There is very likely a genetic component in many cases, though its been hard to specifically identify, but there are significant learned and environmental influences as well. You can see it all over pop culture with young females where its cool to mess around with other girls when your wasted. Another example, more kids that are unaccepted/shuned by their peers early on or victims of some kind of abuse are more likely to be homosexuals.
I believe in some cases its purely genetic. In other cases, there may be an influenceable state.
Nonetheless, Warren is a Christian minister and is echoing the beliefs of his faith...actually, if you listen to him, he is more liberal than many ministers and he is very tolerant. He mostly preaches love and acceptance.
I'm pretty skeptical of his tolerance (just my perspective) and I have a real problem when people try to justify their beliefs with flawed comparisons. I'd have more respect for the guy if he didn't try to insult our intelligence
-
Understood. I heard him speak on this issue a week or two ago and he seemed pretty convincing but no one can be sure.
-
that's the point
he can be against it but nobody has to agree with his assinine comparisons
LOL how are they assinine?
all have a genetic component that leads to a specific behavior do they not? Ill answer for you, YES
So therefore they can be talked about together in a discussion about behavior and genetic predisposition can they not? again ill answer for you, YES
I understand your point of view that the things he compared homosexuality to are considered bad behaviors...but the point is vaild if you are socially expected to overcome these behaviors then why not homosexuality? His point is that just b/c it may have a genetic component to it doesnt make it ok, which is what she asked.
-
LOL how are they assinine?
all have a genetic component that leads to a specific behavior do they not? Ill answer for you, YES
So therefore they can be talked about together in a discussion about behavior and genetic predisposition can they not? again ill answer for you, YES
I understand your point of view that the things he compared homosexuality to are considered bad behaviors...but the point is vaild if you are socially expected to overcome these behaviors then why not homosexuality? His point is that just b/c it may have a genetic component to it doesnt make it ok, which is what she asked.
I don't even know what you're referring to anymore when you say "all".
I do think sexual identity has a genetic component (though it's irrelevent to me either way).
I don't necessarily think being prone to violence or shyness has any clear genetic component but for the sake of argument lets just say they do.
So what?
Warren (and you) choose to construct the specific comparison by picking a negative trait (violence) and then say well we all agree that X is bad so if X is genetic and Y is genetic then then Y must be bad too.
It's complete bullshit but for some reason you think it's logical
Using the same logic one could compare a positive genetic trait (let's pretend that compassion had a genetic component)and then say well X is good and Y is like X so Y must be good.
Both examples are complete bullshit for the exact same reasons
How many different times do you need this explained.
-
I don't even know what you're referring to anymore when you say "all".
I do think sexual identity has a genetic component (though it's irrelevent to me either way).
I don't necessarily think being prone to violence or shyness has any clear genetic component but for the sake of argument lets just say they do.
So what?
Warren (and you) choose to construct the specific comparison by picking a negative trait (violence) and then say well we all agree that X is bad so if X is genetic and Y is genetic then then Y must be bad too.
It's complete bullshit but for some reason you think it's logical
Using the same logic one could compare a positive genetic trait (let's pretend that compassion had a genetic component)and then say well X is good and Y is like X so Y must be good.
Both examples are complete bullshit for the exact same reasons
How many different times do you need this explained.
I agree that the examples are bullshit but he is not saying that.
first of they do have a genetic component DO SOME FUKING RESEARCH
Second of THATS NOT WHAT HE IS SAYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
he is adressing the question he is not saying that b/c anger and shyness have a genetic trait and are bad homosexuality is bad b/c it has a genetic trait...really man your a fuking delusional if you think thats what he is saying
what he is saying is that just b/c homosexuality is somewhat genetic or "natural" that doesnt make it ok, just like its not ok to get angry at ppl for no reason or little reason and just like its not ok to have sex with multiple partners simply b/c you have a genetic predisposition to do so. You understand?
-
what he is saying is that just b/c homosexuality is somewhat genetic or "natural" that doesnt make it ok, just like its not ok to get angry at ppl for no reason or little reason and just like its not ok to have sex with multiple partners simply b/c you have a genetic predisposition to do so. You understand?
ok - fine. Let's go with that explanation.
We can agree that getting angry at people for no reason is bad
Why is homosexuality bad?
Why is having sex with multiple partners bad?
Again, he could just as easily pick a positive trait and make a positive comparison.
He intentionally chooses a negative trait to try to reinforce his own preconceived notion that homosexuality is bad
-
ok - fine. Let's go with that explanation.
We can agree that getting angry at people for no reason is bad
Why is homosexuality bad?
Why is having sex with multiple partners bad?
Again, he could just as easily pick a positive trait and make a positive comparison.
He intentionally chooses a negative trait to try to reinforce his own preconceived notion that homosexuality is bad
again "bad" is a subjective term what i consider bad may not be something you consider bad, you would have to ask him why he thinks its bad im sure there is info out there about his stance on it though. He made the comparison to illustrate the very VALID POINT that simply b/c a behavior is grounded in genetics doesnt make it ok, understand that concept? then we shall move on.
-
again "bad" is a subjective term what i consider bad may not be something you consider bad, you would have to ask him why he thinks its bad im sure there is info out there about his stance on it though. He made the comparison to illustrate the very VALID POINT that simply b/c a behavior is grounded in genetics doesnt make it ok, understand that concept? then we shall move on.
I could agree with this if I actually believed that shyness, anger, etc.. had the same strong genetic link that homosexuality appears to have.
The larger point that not all genetic traits are "good" or "acceptable" is fine but if he used that same argument to say that red hair is a genetic trait and something that should be struggled against would you agree with that thats a valid comparison or would you think he was just being stupid.
I do see your point though I what he is attempting to do.
-
I could agree with this if I actually believed that shyness, anger, etc.. had the same strong genetic link that homosexuality appears to have.
The larger point that not all genetic traits are "good" or "acceptable" is fine but if he used that same argument to say that red hair is a genetic trait and something that should be struggled against would you agree with that thats a valid comparison or would you think he was just being stupid.
I do see your point though I what he is attempting to do.
Well again do some yourself a favor as to not look ignorant if you ever have this debate in public and research the topic of behavior and genetic predispostion.
No it wouldnt be red hair is an attribute not a behavior so he could not compare the two as easily as he could being prone to homosexuality and being prone to violence or promescuity both behaviors.
-
Well again do some yourself a favor as to not look ignorant if you ever have this debate in public and research the topic of behavior and genetic predispostion.
No it wouldnt be red hair is an attribute not a behavior so he could not compare the two as easily as he could being prone to homosexuality and being prone to violence or promescuity both behaviors.
why don't you just do me a favor and show me some links instead of just telling me it's true.
do you really thing "anger" or "shyness" is comparable has a genetic component comparable to sexual identity.
We can both find a bunch of studies that suggest strong genetic components to sexual identity.
Where are the studies about anger or shyness or the tendency toward fear or hatred (all things that Warren used as examples in the 2nd video)
It's a very weak argument on Warrens part in an attempt to justify a preconceived prejudice.
I could just as easily use the same argument to make the complete opposite point i.e. some genetic traits are good and some are neutral. Why not compare sexuality with that instead.
-
why don't you just do me a favor and show me some links instead of just telling me it's true.
do you really thing "anger" or "shyness" is comparable has a genetic component comparable to sexual identity.
We can both find a bunch of studies that suggest strong genetic components to sexual identity.
Where are the studies about anger or shyness or the tendency toward fear or hatred (all things that Warren used as examples in the 2nd video)
It's a very weak argument on Warrens part in an attempt to justify a preconceived prejudice.
I could just as easily use the same argument to make the complete opposite point i.e. some genetic traits are good and some are neutral. Why not compare sexuality with that instead.
I gave you a link in this very thread go look
again you have this idea that he is trying to say that by comparing these thing he is saying one is as bad as the other just like you tried on the first clip and you are not only completely wrong but missing the entire point he is trying to make, ever heard the term missing the forest for the trees...this is what you are doing.
She asked if homosexuality was proven to be genetic would it change his mind on it
He states that no it would not change his mind simply b/c it is genetic, after all other behaviors have a genetic component as well anger, shyness, promescuity your example of addiction and these things are not ok even though they are genetic as well.
Thats what he is saying not whatever irrational point you try and twist his words into this is what he is saying.
-
I gave you a link in this very thread go look
again you have this idea that he is trying to say that by comparing these thing he is saying one is as bad as the other just like you tried on the first clip and you are not only completely wrong but missing the entire point he is trying to make, ever heard the term missing the forest for the trees...this is what you are doing.
She asked if homosexuality was proven to be genetic would it change his mind on it
He states that no it would not change his mind simply b/c it is genetic, after all other behaviors have a genetic component as well anger, shyness, promescuity your example of addiction and these things are not ok even though they are genetic as well.
Thats what he is saying not whatever irrational point you try and twist his words into this is what he is saying.
You know I've watched the 2nd interview with Warren again and your explanation of his comments is nonsense.
I'm back to my original point that I made last night. I should even be on this board during work because I can't give it my full attention
-
You know I've watched the 2nd interview with Warren again and your explanation of his comments is nonsense.
I'm back to my original point that I made last night. I should even be on this board during work because I can't give it my full attention
im sorry i cant help you if its any indication i think every person that has posted on this has agreed he is not saying what you believe him to be saying...at any rate im going to agree to disagree.
-
im sorry i cant help you if its any indication i think every person that has posted on this has agreed he is not saying what you believe him to be saying...at any rate im going to agree to disagree.
yeah the problem is that instead of looking again at that second video I just responded to your defence of what he is saying.
Just for the record Warren never mentions genetic predisposition to violence. He mentions anger, fear and shyness and I'm not aware of any studies showing a genetic component to those emotions so his using that as a point of comparison is ridiculous. More to the point, he acknowledges that even if homosexuality is proven to be genetic then those people still need to resist their urges and be "mature". I find that pretty ironic coming from a guy who is obese (which is certainly bad for his health) and clearly can't resist his own urges to overeat.
Again, he'd be better off just saying what we all knows actually believes (namely that homosexuality is a sin) and drop all the ridiculous comparisons and logical fallacies
-
yeah the problem is that instead of looking again at that second video I just responded to your defence of what he is saying.
Just for the record Warren never mentions genetic predisposition to violence. He mentions anger, fear and shyness and I'm not aware of any studies showing a genetic component to those emotions so his using that as a point of comparison is ridiculous. More to the point, he acknowledges that even if homosexuality is proven to be genetic then those people still need to resist their urges and be "mature". I find that pretty ironic coming from a guy who is obese (which is certainly bad for his health) and clearly can't resist his own urges to overeat.
Again, he'd be better off just saying what we all knows actually believes (namely that homosexuality is a sin) and drop all the ridiculous comparisons and logical fallacies
SIGH you drug me back in again do some research bro and you will understand man im done trying to open your eyes to it...anger leads to violence also he used the example of promescuity...have you researched it? you probably havent so how would you be aware of it?
His comparisons are legitimate and his logic is good trust me...you ever take a logic class?
-
SIGH you drug me back in again do some research bro and you will understand man im done trying to open your eyes to it...anger leads to violence also he used the example of promescuity...have you researched it? you probably havent so how would you be aware of it?
His comparisons are legitimate and his logic if good trust me...you ever take a logic class?
Why don't we just let Warrens words speak for themself and you can draw your conclusion and I'll draw my own.
I think we've both shared our opinions in enough detail so that we don't need to repeat the same arguments for another 5 pages
I do think it's rich that this fat blowhard has the temerity to tell people to resist their urges about their sexual identity (he still never says why they should do that) while at the same time he is obese and clearly lacks the self discipline to control his own urges about how much food he shoves down his own piehole. Fucking Classic Hypocrite. How soon before we find out that he likes male hookers and meth?
-
Why don't we just let Warrens words speak for themself and you can draw your conclusion and I'll draw my own.
I think we've both shared our opinions in enough detail so that we don't need to repeat the same arguments for another 5 pages
I do think it's rich that this fat blowhard has the temerity to tell people to resist their urges about their sexual identity (he still never says why they should do that) while at the same time he is obese and clearly lacks the self discipline to control his own urges about how much food he shoves down his own piehole. Fucking Classic Hypocrite. How soon before we find out that he likes male hookers and meth?
everybody is a hypocrite to some degree me, him and even you.
done and done
-
everybody is a hypocrite to some degree me, him and even you.
done and done
I'll admit to being lazy and careless at times
but I don't think I'm a hypocrite
-
I'll admit to being lazy and careless at times
but I don't think I'm a hypocrite
LOL well my friend you are probably not taking a objective look at yourself. Everybody is at one time or another a hypocrite and very often i might add even if the person doesnt realize it. At any rate that doesnt take away from the validity of his point and for all you know that is something that he "struggles with".
-
if you dont know the person mudered then how does it affect you?
having a child out of wedlock certainly affects the child doesnt it?
cheating on a wife certainly affects the wife doesnt it?
Using the Lords name in vein certainly affects the religious ppl around doesnt it?
your logic is flawed bro.
If you believe that none of the examples you gave have any effect on religious ppl then by using your logic either would somebody going on a killing spree in gods name either.
To back this up for a minute...
This is exactly the opposite of my point... it's actually the point you are arguing. You are making the case that someone's religious belief's and sensitivities should come into play when we decide what they are aloud to do. Murder results in real, tangible harm to the murder victim. That is why it is illegal. Adultery, using the lord's name in vain and illegitimate children are not illegal... even if they do offend the religious sensibilities of some.
THAT was the point... simply because something may offend someone does not mean it affects their life. If I punch someone or kill someone, that affects them. If two men decide to engage in a sexual relationship, name one tangible way that it affects anyone else's life, (other than making them uncomfortable). There aren't any because it doesn't.
-
To back this up for a minute...
This is exactly the opposite of my point... it's actually the point you are arguing. You are making the case that someone's religious belief's and sensitivities should come into play when we decide what they are aloud to do. Murder results in real, tangible harm to the murder victim. That is why it is illegal. Adultery, using the lord's name in vain and illegitimate children are not illegal... even if they do offend the religious sensibilities of some.
THAT was the point... simply because something may offend someone does not mean it affects their life. If I punch someone or kill someone, that affects them. If two men decide to engage in a sexual relationship, name one tangible way that it affects anyone else's life, (other than making them uncomfortable). There aren't any because it doesn't.
What tangible harm does polygamy cause to people outside of the relationship?
-
To back this up for a minute...
This is exactly the opposite of my point... it's actually the point you are arguing. You are making the case that someone's religious belief's and sensitivities should come into play when we decide what they are aloud to do. Murder results in real, tangible harm to the murder victim. That is why it is illegal. Adultery, using the lord's name in vain and illegitimate children are not illegal... even if they do offend the religious sensibilities of some.
THAT was the point... simply because something may offend someone does not mean it affects their life. If I punch someone or kill someone, that affects them. If two men decide to engage in a sexual relationship, name one tangible way that it affects anyone else's life, (other than making them uncomfortable). There aren't any because it doesn't.
LOL ya i kinda thought i buggered that up a little but i was debating with straw and you came in i couldnt argue two different points...not a good multi tasker :-[
So getting a divorce doesnt affect ppls lives?, adultery doesnt affect ppls lives? your saying that they dont?
Homosexual marriage would redefine the RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION of marriage...from my point of view tangible effects or not is erroneous, what would be the tangible effects of having civil unions for gays instead of marriage?
-
To back this up for a minute...
This is exactly the opposite of my point... it's actually the point you are arguing. You are making the case that someone's religious belief's and sensitivities should come into play when we decide what they are aloud to do. Murder results in real, tangible harm to the murder victim. That is why it is illegal. Adultery, using the lord's name in vain and illegitimate children are not illegal... even if they do offend the religious sensibilities of some.
THAT was the point... simply because something may offend someone does not mean it affects their life. If I punch someone or kill someone, that affects them. If two men decide to engage in a sexual relationship, name one tangible way that it affects anyone else's life, (other than making them uncomfortable). There aren't any because it doesn't.
Actually, adultery is illegal, though it is hardly the capital crime it once was. At one time in this nation’s history, a guy could be fined and/or jailed for committing adultery. Now, it’s more or less reduced to a “tack-on” foul. Basically, you won’t get arrested for it; but, if you do some other crime or have some legal dispute (particularly domestic ones like divorce), adultery can be added to the mix. And, in the military, committing adultery is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and can be grounds for separation.
As for illegitimate children, having kids out of wedlock doens't just affect those kids. The mothers of those kids who, more than likely, will raise them with little-to-no aid from the father, are far more likely to live in poverty. Having to work multiple jobs to support those kids means less supervision and more time for those kids to get into mischief, hang out in the streets, get involved in drugs, gangs, and crime.
With regards to the two men having sex, as I said to Straw Man, if those two men happened to be brothers, I seriously doubt people (even those don't think homosexuality is wrong) would be demanding that they be allowed to do that, much less engage or attempt to be involved in gay "marriage".
There are lots of things we could legalize, if the primary criteria is that it simply not directy affect anyone else's life: Incest, bestiality, pedophilia, just to name a few.
-
Actually, adultery is illegal, though it is hardly the capital crime it once was. At one time in this nation’s history, a guy could be fined and/or jailed for committing adultery. Now, it’s more or less reduced to a “tack-on” foul. Basically, you won’t get arrested for it; but, if you do some other crime or have some legal dispute (particularly domestic ones like divorce), adultery can be added to the mix. And, in the military, committing adultery is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and can be grounds for separation.
As for illegitimate children, having kids out of wedlock doens't just affect those kids. The mothers of those kids who, more than likely, will raise them with little-to-no aid from the father, are far more likely to live in poverty. Having to work multiple jobs to support those kids means less supervision and more time for those kids to get into mischief, hang out in the streets, get involved in drugs, gangs, and crime.
With regards to the two men having sex, as I said to Straw Man, if those two men happened to be brothers, I seriously doubt people (even those don't think homosexuality is wrong) would be demanding that they be allowed to do that, much less engage or attempt to be involved in gay "marriage".
There are lots of things we could legalize, if the primary criteria is that it simply not directy affect anyone else's life: Incest, bestiality, pedophilia, just to name a few.
that was my point with the murder scenario i just didnt word it right, doggity you believe that adultery, divorce, having kids out of wedlock doesnt affect ppl but it does...Somebody that i dont know getting murdered doesnt effect me but that doesnt mean its ok.
Again though marriage is a religious institution, im sure most religious ppl would give up their govenmental benefits and grant everybody civil unions gay or straight and make marriage a private institution in order to preserve the defenition of marriage.
-
LOL ya i kinda thought i buggered that up a little but i was debating with straw and you came in i couldnt argue two different points...not a good multi tasker :-[
So getting a divorce doesnt affect ppls lives?, adultery doesnt affect ppls lives? your saying that they dont?
Homosexual marriage would redefine the RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION of marriage...from my point of view tangible effects or not is erroneous, what would be the tangible effects of having civil unions for gays instead of marriage?
marriage is not strictly and soley a religious institution. If anything religion is secondary to the civil institution of marriage.
-
marriage is not strictly and soley a religious institution. If anything religion is secondary to the civil institution of marriage.
Im not saying it is it would be ignorant to think so but it was a religious institution before it was a civil institution and still remains a Religious institution why do you think a religious person oversees the majority of marriages.
again im sure most religious ppl would give up government benefits of marriage inorder to not redefine it to include gay marriage and just let everybody have civil unions under the law.
-
Im not saying it is it would be ignorant to think so but it was a religious institution before it was a civil institution and still remains a Religious institution why do you think a religious person oversees the majority of marriages.
again im sure most religious ppl would give up government benefits of marriage inorder to not redefine it to include gay marriage and just let everybody have civil unions under the law.
I don't know the history of marriage but I'm pretty sure it was more a business transaction before it was a religious institution
What "government benefits" are you talking about.
-
The point is that you are arguing two definitions that aren't equal.
Many people think that state marriage is the same as religious marriage.
They are not.
If his church views gay marriage as wrong then so be it. He is right to do what he thinks since his church answers to God not to the state.
There are plenty of churches that allow gay marriage.
The state can institute gay marriage, since the definition a state uses is a legal and not a religious definition of marriage.
A state marriage has no religious implication and a church passing judgment on what the state does should have no bearing on the law.
I am all for a redefinition of civil marriage to civil union, in order to get rid of the confusion.
I know many people that aren't religious that would be upset with this, because they view a civil union as less then a marriage.
This drives me crazy.
They aren't equal, they are different, and one is not less then the other.
-
I am all for a redefinition of civil marriage to civil union, in order to get rid of the confusion.
I know many people that aren't religious that would be upset with this, because they view a civil union as less then a marriage.
This drives me crazy.
They aren't equal, they are different, and one is not less then the other.
i think this stems from the use of the word marriage and its view as a religious institution. If the government where to make marriage a strictly private religious institution and just grant civil unions then i think most ppl would be ok with it
Im all for gays having the same rights as straight ppl...but im sure i cant go elicit school funds from the NAACP b/c im not AA so should we have to change that as well? Its ignorant to expect ppl to change their religious views to encompass something they dont believe in. What would happen if religious ppl started a crusade to put an end to homosexuality? probably arrests in the form of hate crimes.
I understand that, many ppl wouldnt be happy even if civil unions where exactly the same b/c straight ppl can get married but they cant. ::)
-
that was my point with the murder scenario i just didnt word it right, doggity you believe that adultery, divorce, having kids out of wedlock doesnt affect ppl but it does...Somebody that i dont know getting murdered doesnt effect me but that doesnt mean its ok.
Again though marriage is a religious institution, im sure most religious ppl would give up their govenmental benefits and grant everybody civil unions gay or straight and make marriage a private institution in order to preserve the defenition of marriage.
My office is moving floors so I only surf at work during lunch...
So to back this up again...
The failure of your murder scenario is still glaring. As I said earlier, when you murder someone you are causing them actual harm. You are killing them. In the other scenarios the harm is nebulous and not guaranteed. There are plenty of children born out of wedlock who have had wonderful lives. There are no people who have been murdered who have gone on to lead wonderful lives .
If you want to split hairs and call adultery illegal, then you can trace it to breach of a legal contract to a spouse.
Still, that doesn't negate my point. It only enhances it. Outside of the people involved in a homosexual relationship, no one is affected by it. Being offended by something is not the same thing as being affected by it.
-
My office is moving floors so I only surf at work during lunch...
So to back this up again...
The failure of your murder scenario is still glaring. As I said earlier, when you murder someone you are causing them actual harm. You are killing them. In the other scenarios the harm is nebulous and not guaranteed. There are plenty of children born out of wedlock who have had wonderful lives. There are no people who have been murdered who have gone on to lead wonderful lives .
But, there are plenty more children born out of wedlock, who have had to struggle just to survive. And, of those who have had "wonderful lives", that did not come without cost (no doubt, emotional cost of having to overcompensate for one parent, usually the father, not being there in their lives).
If you want to split hairs and call adultery illegal, then you can trace it to breach of a legal contract to a spouse.
Still, that doesn't negate my point. It only enhances it. Outside of the people involved in a homosexual relationship, no one is affected by it. Being offended by something is not the same thing as being affected by it.
You don't have to split hairs with adultery. It's just that, as said earlier, the consequence for such has been DRASTICALLY reduced, from a legal standpoint.
Again, if two same-sex siblings are involved in a homosexual relationship, does that mean that incest is now kosher, especially considering that advocates of gay "marriage" like to discount the aspect of procreation in the marriage relationship?
-
But, there are plenty more children born out of wedlock, who have had to struggle just to survive. And, of those who have had "wonderful lives", that did not come without cost (no doubt, emotional cost of having to overcompensate for one parent, usually the father, not being there in their lives).
You don't have to split hairs with adultery. It's just that, as said earlier, the consequence for such has been DRASTICALLY reduced, from a legal standpoint.
Again, if two same-sex siblings are involved in a homosexual relationship, does that mean that incest is now kosher, especially considering that advocates of gay "marriage" like to discount the aspect of procreation in the marriage relationship?
incest has nothing to do with homosexuality so stop comparing the two
or
why not make a comparison between a brother a sister who want to get married instead of two same sex siblings?
does that mean that incest in now Ok, especially since a brother and sister could actually procreate?
-
My office is moving floors so I only surf at work during lunch...
So to back this up again...
The failure of your murder scenario is still glaring. As I said earlier, when you murder someone you are causing them actual harm. You are killing them. In the other scenarios the harm is nebulous and not guaranteed. There are plenty of children born out of wedlock who have had wonderful lives. There are no people who have been murdered who have gone on to lead wonderful lives .
If you want to split hairs and call adultery illegal, then you can trace it to breach of a legal contract to a spouse.
Still, that doesn't negate my point. It only enhances it. Outside of the people involved in a homosexual relationship, no one is affected by it. Being offended by something is not the same thing as being affected by it.
Thats cool i figured you got busy or something.
Your arguement is that divorce, children born out of wedlock etc...dont effect ppl? lets get that straight first
So what? outside the person murdered who is affected?
It does affect them it redefines a CORE belief...you still havent addressed the point that marriage is a religious institution...or answered the question of what tangible effects there are of having civil unions for gays instead of marriage?
-
Thats cool i figured you got busy or something.
Your arguement is that divorce, children born out of wedlock etc...dont effect ppl? lets get that straight first
So what? outside the person murdered who is affected?
It does affect them it redefines a CORE belief...you still havent addressed the point that marriage is a religious institution...or answered the question of what tangible effects there are of having civil unions for gays instead of marriage?
so what?
If any action of someone else has an effect on one of my core beliefs then you're suggesting that's a valid argument against it?
-
so what?
If any action of someone else has an effect on one of my core beliefs then you're suggesting that's a valid argument against it?
is that core belief a religious belief? when put in a religious context it does gain traction.
Also everything you do during the day could be deemed as effecting the core belief of somebody, so no that alone doesnt make it a valid arguement I was addressing doggity's question about how it effects other ppl.
-
is that core belief a religious belief? when put in a religious context it does gain traction.
Also everything you do during the day could be deemed as effecting the core belief of somebody, so no that alone doesnt make it a valid arguement I was addressing doggity's question about how it effects other ppl.
so in your mind would this only apply to the Christian religions (the 100's of derivations) or would this be applicable for any religion?
-
so in your mind would this only apply to the Christian religions (the 100's of derivations) or would this be applicable for any religion?
of course to every religion however again just about everything you do on a daily basis's could be looked at as effecting somebody.
-
But, there are plenty more children born out of wedlock, who have had to struggle just to survive. And, of those who have had "wonderful lives", that did not come without cost (no doubt, emotional cost of having to overcompensate for one parent, usually the father, not being there in their lives).
You don't have to split hairs with adultery. It's just that, as said earlier, the consequence for such has been DRASTICALLY reduced, from a legal standpoint.
Again, if two same-sex siblings are involved in a homosexual relationship, does that mean that incest is now kosher, especially considering that advocates of gay "marriage" like to discount the aspect of procreation in the marriage relationship?
There are plenty of single parent homes that are doing far better than struggling. Likewise, there are many two parent homes that would be classified as working impoverished. And simply because a mother and father weren't married when a child was born doesn't mean that both parents are not a part of the child's life. A child's life is not guaranteed to be perfect, they are not going to be born with every advantage. Attractive looks and height are probably desired traits, but is every person who doesn't have the genes to produce a tall, attractive baby hurting their baby?
While the gender of who you are sexually attracted to may not be a choice, the member of that gender with whom you engage in sexual activity certainly is. There is no evidence to suggest that sexual attraction to your brother or sister is a genetic predisposition.
-
is that core belief a religious belief? when put in a religious context it does gain traction.
Also everything you do during the day could be deemed as effecting the core belief of somebody, so no that alone doesnt make it a valid arguement I was addressing doggity's question about how it effects other ppl.
My argument was never that divorce and those other things don't
affect people. They affect people involved in a very powerful way. You are confusing two different points.
Let's retrace our steps:
Murder: If you kill a hermit who has lived alone for twenty years and no one cares when he dies, then you have still harmed him. He is dead. That is all the "affecting" you need to do.
Gay sex: Usually involves two consenting adults, so excepting any physical injuries that may occur during intercouse or resultant stds, the people involved aren't harmed. No one other than these two people are affected.
That was the point. No one outside of the relationship is affected. You argued that having to tolerate others who don't share your beliefs is tantamount to harm. Then you brought up that murder scenario.
My argument was never that if something doesn't affect multiple people, it shouldn't matter. My argument was that only the people who have to be affected are the people involved. Having to co-exist with people who don't share your religious values is not harm. When it comes to those other things, most people, even religious people realize that they have to butt out and tend to their own business.
-
There are plenty of single parent homes that are doing far better than struggling. Likewise, there are many two parent homes that would be classified as working impoverished. And simply because a mother and father weren't married when a child was born doesn't mean that both parents are not a part of the child's life. A child's life is not guaranteed to be perfect, they are not going to be born with every advantage. Attractive looks and height are probably desired traits, but is every person who doesn't have the genes to produce a tall, attractive baby hurting their baby?
While the gender of who you are sexually attracted to may not be a choice, the member of that gender with whom you engage in sexual activity certainly is. There is no evidence to suggest that sexual attraction to your brother or sister is a genetic predisposition.
Right i agree with your statements, do some research though and you will see that a child reared in a 2 parent house does much better on average then a child raised in a single parent house hold. Your arguement that divorce or having a child out of wedlock not effecting ppl while I can certainly see your point of view is pretty weak.
This was part of warrens response to the question in the second video, your second paragraph there implies that homosexuality is ok and incest not simply b/c it has a genetic component. Propensity towards violence has a genetic component as well but that doesnt make it ok. You need more reasoning to ok homosexuality then simply b/c it has a genetic component.
-
My argument was never that divorce and those other things don't
affect people. They affect people involved in a very powerful way. You are confusing two different points.
Let's retrace our steps:
Murder: If you kill a hermit who has lived alone for twenty years and no one cares when he dies, then you have still harmed him. He is dead. That is all the "affecting" you need to do.
Gay sex: Usually involves two consenting adults, so excepting any physical injuries that may occur during intercouse or resultant stds, the people involved aren't harmed. No one other than these two people are affected.
That was the point. No one outside of the relationship is affected. You argued that having to tolerate others who don't share your beliefs is tantamount to harm. Then you brought up that murder scenario.
My argument was never that if something doesn't affect multiple people, it shouldn't matter. My argument was that only the people who have to be affected are the people involved. Having to co-exist with people who don't share your religious values is not harm. When it comes to those other things, most people, even religious people realize that they have to butt out and tend to their own business.
I dont remember argueing that if i did i was wrong, my confusion came when you compared divorce, children born out of wedlock with homosexuality and it seemed like you implied that they didnt effect ppl.
Ok thanks for clearing that up
I can definitly understand that and i have no problem with that assesment. I think that if homosexuals didnt want to be married there wouldnt be as big a fight or near as big a fuss either. I think the problem starts when homosexuality is brought to religion through marriage a primarily religious institution. Ive never done research on it but i would be willing to bet that most religious ppl would be in favor of civil unions. Its not at least in my mind religious ppl trying to tell ppl how to live their lives or control them only them trying to protect something they hold sacred.
-
Right i agree with your statements, do some research though and you will see that a child reared in a 2 parent house does much better on average then a child raised in a single parent house hold. Your arguement that divorce or having a child out of wedlock not effecting ppl while I can certainly see your point of view is pretty weak.
This was part of warrens response to the question in the second video, your second paragraph there implies that homosexuality is ok and incest not simply b/c it has a genetic component. Propensity towards violence has a genetic component as well but that doesnt make it ok. You need more reasoning to ok homosexuality then simply b/c it has a genetic component.
And we're right back where we started.
Violence is not bad just because. It is bad because it results in actual harm to someone's person or property. It has a tangible negative impact. There is no comparison between a genetic predisposition to violence and a genetically predetermined sexual orientation.
I never made the argument that two parent families and single parent homes were equal in all regards. I'm aware that kids from two parent homes have been found to do marginally better. My point was that just because a child does not have every benefit does not mean you are harming them. Single parent homes are not a guarantee or even a sign of failure. You can come from a single family home and still expect to do pretty well.
However, I have to point out that your conclusion that kids from two parent families do better is specious. Most analysis of studies that have come to this conclusion attribute the well-being of the kids to the fact that the parents had a strong, loving relationship- not simply two parents in the house at any cost. Most psychologists agree that long term conflict is far worse for a child than a single parent home.
-
I dont remember argueing that if i did i was wrong,
Yes it does affect these folks
Iono about the second im not sure if child out of wedlock isnt a relatively new concept
Yes it does affect these folks
they affect them b/c they deal with their beliefs
by your logic someone going on a rampage and killing ppl in the name of god shouldnt affect them either.
Again religious institution
-
And we're right back where we started.
Violence is not bad just because. It is bad because it results in actual harm to someone's person or property. It has a tangible negative impact. There is no comparison between a genetic predisposition to violence and a genetically predetermined sexual orientation.
I never made the argument that two parent families and single parent homes were equal in all regards. I'm aware that kids from two parent homes have been found to do marginally better. My point was that just because a child does not have every benefit does not mean you are harming them. Single parent homes are not a guarantee or even a sign of failure. You can come from a single family home and still expect to do pretty well.
However, I have to point out that your conclusion that kids from two parent families do better is specious. Most analysis of studies that have come to this conclusion attribute the well-being of the kids to the fact that the parents had a strong, loving relationship- not simply two parents in the house at any cost. Most psychologists agree that long term conflict is far worse for a child than a single parent home.
I agree with they loving home comment as opposed to 2 parent homes that arent. What was you point of bringing up divorce or children born out of wedlock?
Again your statment While the gender of who you are sexually attracted to may not be a choice, the member of that gender with whom you engage in sexual activity certainly is. There is no evidence to suggest that sexual attraction to your brother or sister is a genetic predisposition.
implies that simply b/c homosexuality is genetic makes it ok as opposed to incest which is not believed to be genetic, correct? And also certain physical traits do elicit certain genetic responses, why do you think big breasted women are popular?
Im not argueing that homosexuality in itself has a tangible negative impact, although i dont see a tangible postive impact either personally that just my opinion. However when you infringe on others belief system it could, ppl will have to redefine their religious beliefs which could lead to tangible effects.
again you havent answered my questions of what tangible effects there would be if civil unions where legalized as opposed to marriage for gays? or marriage being a religious institution.
-
I agree with they loving home comment as opposed to 2 parent homes that arent. What was you point of bringing up divorce or children born out of wedlock?
As I said in my previous post, the point of bringing up these things is that while some may consider them immoral, they are better off just minding their damned business when it comes to them. Once again, it goes back to your claim that homosexuality affects others simply because it doesn't adhere to their beliefs. It doesn't affect these people anymore than someone else's divorce or adultery does.
Again your statment implies that simply b/c homosexuality is genetic makes it ok as opposed to incest which is not believed to be genetic, correct? And also certain physical traits do elicit certain genetic responses, why do you think big breasted women are popular?
I don't know why you threw the word simply in there. That's a big caveat. Yes, certain physical traits do elicit sexual responses. I'm sure a female in your family has big breasts or a nice ass. Whether or not you have a sexual relationship with her is a choice the two of you would have to make. However, there are plenty women you aren't related to that you could fuck. You'd be making a conscious choice to fuck a family member. The same isn't true of gays. If you are proposing that homosexuality is illegal or immoral, then you are denying someone a basic biological right (the right to sexual satisfaction) based on something that is essentially arbitrary (gender). Huge difference.
Im not argueing that homosexuality in itself has a tangible negative impact, although i dont see a tangible postive impact either personally that just my opinion. However when you infringe on others belief system it could, ppl will have to redefine their religious beliefs which could lead to tangible effects.
There don't have to be any positive effects.
again you havent answered my questions of what tangible effects there would be if civil unions where legalized as opposed to marriage for gays? or marriage being a religious institution.
"Separate but equal" is illegal in this country. It would cause as many problems as it addressed.
Marriage was started as a business transaction. It predates religion and it exists as a government institution as well. The religious aspect if fairly recent. Families used to arrange them for money, they didn't even involve love. They have been "redefined" multiple times since their inception.
People who are married in civil cermonies are still "married".
-
As I said in my previous post, the point of bringing up these things is that while some may consider them immoral, they are better off just minding their damned business when it comes to them. Once again, it goes back to your claim that homosexuality affects others simply because it doesn't adhere to their beliefs. It doesn't affect these people anymore than someone else's divorce or adultery does.
I don't know why you threw the word simply in there. That's a big caveat. Yes, certain physical traits do elicit sexual responses. I'm sure a female in your family has big breasts or a nice ass. Whether or not you have a sexual relationship with her is a choice the two of you would have to make. However, there are plenty women you aren't related to that you could fuck. You'd be making a conscious choice to fuck a family member. The same isn't true of gays. If you are proposing that homosexuality is illegal or immoral, then you are denying someone a basic biological right (the right to sexual satisfaction) based on something that is essentially arbitrary (gender). Huge difference.
There don't have to be any positive effects.
"Separate but equal" is illegal in this country. It would cause as many problems as it addressed.
Marriage was started as a business transaction. It predates religion and it exists as a government institution as well. The religious aspect if fairly recent. Families used to arrange them for money, they didn't even involve love. They have been "redefined" multiple times since their inception.
People who are married in civil cermonies are still "married".
Im getting ready to go out for the night so im not going to respond to this just yet as our posts seem to be getting longer and longer but i think you are misunderstanding me now. I will respond tonight or tomorrow.
But for now could you find me proof that marriage existed as a government institution before it existed as a religious one?
-
I never said it was a government institution before it was a religious one, just that it predates religion. It, without question, predates christianity.
I'm sure you're also aware of the history of arranged marriages, having little to do with love. They were frequently business arrangements between families, even among church goers.. So the idea that marriage is something that is so unimpeachably, historically sacred among the religious is, at best, historically inaccurate.
-
I never said it was a government institution before it was a religious one, just that it predates religion. It, without question, predates christianity.
I'm sure you're also aware of the history of arranged marriages, having little to do with love. They were frequently business arrangements between families, even among church goers.. So the idea that marriage is something that is so unimpeachably, historically sacred among the religious is, at best, historically inaccurate.
christians wont acknowledge that asians migrated to america 9,000 before christ. their entire marriage stand is based on falsity.