Commentary: Rick Warren foes aren't practicing tolerance

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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?

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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".

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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?

[tonymctones]

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?

[MCWAY]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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.   

[a_joker10]

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.

[tonymctones]

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. 

[Al Doggity]

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. 

[MCWAY]

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?

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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?

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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.