Commentary: Rick Warren foes aren't practicing tolerance

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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.

[tonymctones]

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?

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

so we agree

[tonymctones]

so we agree

LOL agree on what?

[Straw Man]

LOL agree on what?

right

[Straw Man]

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.

[a_joker10]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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).


  

[Straw Man]

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.   

[Al Doggity]

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.

[tonymctones]

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?

[tonymctones]

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.

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Straw Man]

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.  

[Al Doggity]

In that case, the argument is even more flawed.

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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