Commentary: Rick Warren foes aren't practicing tolerance

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Al Doggity]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Al Doggity]

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

[tonymctones]

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.

[Al Doggity]

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".

[tonymctones]

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?

[Al Doggity]

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.

[bigdumbbell]

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.