Commentary: Rick Warren foes aren't practicing tolerance

[Al Doggity]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[tonymctones]

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

[Al Doggity]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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.  

[Straw Man]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[tonymctones]

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

[Straw Man]

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?

[Straw Man]

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

[shootfighter1]

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.

[shootfighter1]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[shootfighter1]

Understood.  I heard him speak on this issue a week or two ago and he seemed pretty convincing but no one can be sure. 

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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.

[tonymctones]

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? 

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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