Rick Warren: Homosexuality is Like Arsenic, Consensual Gay Sex Like Punching Someone In the Nose

Comments

1
Nose?
2
I agree with Rev. Warren that just because homosexuality is natural doesn't necessarily make it good. Murder, rape, and theft are all quite common in nature. The reverend was a bit vague about how it is that tolerance for homosexuals harms society, however.
3
It's one of the reasons I had to hold my nose when voting for Obama. Sure he has done a lot for gay people, but he couldn't find any other preacher to give the invocation other than one who so hates gay people? Would anyone have told Jews that if he had chosen an anti Semite to give the invocation that they just need to be accepting and deal with it like gay people were told when he chose this gay hating fuck?

Rick Warren DESERVES a punch in the nose.
4
His glasses are so gay.
5
Isn't his church called Bareback Church or something with back in the name? I mean the name of his church DOES sound ....gay.
6
Wait, Warren hasn't been caught with a cock in his mouth yet?
7
Don't put fucking Piers Morgan's fucking face on fucking Slog ever again. OK? Thanks.
8
"This is the very kind of discussion that we need to be having. ...That treat everybody with dignity, that treat everybody with love, but could disagree on certain issues and still say, 'You know what, I don't agree with that guy, but I think he has come to his position from his background.'"


If this came out of someone's mouth when discussing civil rights based on skin color, the cries of "racist!" would be deafening. But because the topic is gay rights, somehow it's valid? Still sounds like bigotry to me.
9
basically pastor rick says attraction is not a sin. action may be a sin.
god chose you to be gay so you could be celibate to obey him.
and arsenic is also natch-rul.

makes sense if you keep talking in circles.
good gravy.
10
Seems the haters are adapting their argument to deal the increasingly obvious reality that gay isn't a choice, which means we (e.g. Piers Morgan) need to adapt our counterarguments, which is

"Unlike punching someone in the face, no one is hurt by mutually consensual gay sex. Quite the opposite, in fact."

11
does punching someone in the face give them AIDS?
12
@11: Happy to test that theory out on you.
13
He had a good Ted Talk about a Purpose Driven Life - what a wolf in sheep's clothing.
14
@6, I think Mark Driscoll will be found doing that before Rick. Though Kirk Cameron is a good bet for that happening with as well.
15
Since there's no difference between consensual gay sex and punching somebody in the nose, can I punch Rick Warren in the nose?
16
I just assume anyone who claims to be an authority for all things gay is gay. Self-loathing is sad.
17
12

now now

try to resist the dark side, sport....
18
15

are you saying you've have you had gay sex with Rick?
19
18

soirry.

try this:

are you saying you've had gay sex with Rick?
20
it matters not one whit if 'gay' is natural or innate.

society restricts they way pedophiles may act on their 'natural' 'innate' impulses.

and many diseases are genetically determined.
we do not embrace them, we look for cures and treatments.

if one's aspiration is to emulate bonobos or penguins they should petition to be admitted to the zoo....
21
Gay sex is not only natural, it's it wonderful, loving, and lots of fun!
22
All I learned about arsenic I know from Agatha Christie stories, so apparently, homosexuality smells like almonds.
23
21

why is there a small ufo hovering over the head of the baboon in your avatar?
24
Shame on everyone who gets suckered into the "is it natural, or is it a choice" discussion, because it doesn't matter.

Also, please don't respond to the idiot troll. Look what happens: it makes one stupid comment, someone responds, and then 4 stupid comments appear. It's like what happens when a Mogwai gets wet or fed after midnight. Gremlins ... nasty, ugly, idiotic, gremlins.
25
If it's anything like a punch in the nose, your blowjobs are too enthusiastic, Rick.
26
Gay sex is like punching Warren in the nose? I bet not even Dan likes gay sex that much.
27
23, That you actually took the time to open my profile just to look at my picture is very telling. No, I won't have sex with you. Maybe you can hire a rent-boy.
28
Sadly, Warren is actually pretty reasonable. It's quite scary that he's among the least of evils in the religious right.
29
@24, "Shame on everyone who gets suckered into the "is it natural, or is it a choice" discussion, because it doesn't matter."

It's not that it is some justification. I just don't like other people trying to dictate my experience to me. If I argue that my being gay wasn't a choice I am not trying to make any argument for why it should be accepted. I am simply trying to express my reality and not allow others to try to dictate it for me.

The vast majority of the gay people I have known in my life all say it wasn't a choice. That is simply a statement of fact and someone trying to say otherwise is trying to co-opt our experience for their own nefarious ends.

Because I also have no trouble saying that if someone could give me a pill tomorrow that would turn me straight I would tell you go shove it up their ass. I have no desire to be anything but what I am. But I also don't feel there is any shame in stating that what I am is what I was born as, not something I consciously chose. I am how nature made me, and in this case there is nothing wrong with that.

Ultimately it makes do difference in the debate. If we could provide 100% perfect genetic proof that gay people were born gay it wouldn't change the minds of these people because their position isn't something arrived at by science or reason, so science or reason can't be used to change their minds. However truth is truth and my experiences are my experiences and I refuse to allow someone else to speak for me about my experiences or try to tell me what my experiences "really" are.
30
@20

But pedos inflict deep psychological harm upon kids, which is why we restrict them and try to treat them. To be legit, you have to make the case that a consensual gay male couple is inflicting harm upon one another. And before you scream "AIDS!" recall that the disease is most prevalent in Africa where it's a scourge of *straight people*, not gays.
31
@25 Step to the top of the podium and accept your trophy, please.
32
Speaking of blowjobs, any bets that in his second term, Obama will stop offering them to reichtards who voted against him? The Rev. Senor Saddleback reminds me that I have twenty bucks to put on "no."

Maybe fifty for the position of Treasure Secretary. Who's got a portrait of President Grant who thinks it WON'T go to a whore for Wall Street?
33
Religion has messed up his brain.
34
27

but will he have all of his teeth?
35
34, with your limited budget, and hefty, saggy, physique, you'll need to take what you can afford. Besides, you'll have your face buried in the back seat of your mother's car.
36
30

No.

Danny and Queer,Inc. say that homosexuality is innate and so we have to let them get married, because Negroes and all.

Just because a trait is innate society does not have to foster, promote or subsidize it.

Treatment and eradication are also possible courses of action...

Setting aside the question of what harm homosexuality does to the individuals and societies that harbor it; just because a behavior is 'harmless' does not mean society is obligated to foster, promote or subsidize it.

And objective studies (from the era before researchers who uncovered facts unpopular with Queer,Inc were blackballed) demonstrate that homosexuality inflicts a host of psychological and medical harms.
But even Queer,Inc can not suppress the fact that HERE IN AMERICA homosexuality is associated with sky high rates of STDs, cancers, and mental illnesses.

37
36, but how will you eradicate your own homosexual desires?
38
Whenever an evangelist starts cranking up the old homosexuality-is-evil machine, you know the coffers must be running low and/or he's trying to get his name in the papers because he's become irrelevant.
39
Look at the positive. You actually got a major evangelical leader to admit that homosexuality is natural. Now, move on.
40
@36: Let's see these "studies" demonstrating the deleterious effects of The Gay.
I'm just a straight ally here, but I think I can reasonably speak for The Gay Lifestyle when I say that we don't need society to "foster, promote or subsidize" The Gay. Hell, we're just asking for tolerance of The Gay and The Gay Lifestyle and The Gay Marriages? Is that so much for The Gay to ask? What do you have against The Gay?
41
Christianity, unlike sexual desire, is a choice. No one is born believing in Jesus, and no one would ever believe in Jesus without someone telling them that fable and insisting that it's true and threatening them with eternal tortures in the pit of hell if they don't believe it also.

42
@37, Rob in Baltimore, your comment made my day! Great response.
43
How long until he comes out?
44
What's really hilarious is the guy thinks he's an authority on how I should live my life. I don't believe his religion, but I'm supposed to follow it because this clown tells me to. I have a few suggestions for him. First would be to mind his own business.
45
Thanks Rob and Venom! Your provocative comments led me to open @36 to read, and now I'm covered in his stink and need a shower. Such a sick and perverted human being. Gross.
46
Translation: Gay sex is offensive to *me*, and it's like punching *me* in the nose. Because they're doing something I really really want but "can't" have. Have some decency and do what I do and repress your same-sex desire!
47
@15: Actually, I think he wants someone to punch-fuck him.
48
@41: "no one would ever believe in Jesus without someone telling them that fable and insisting that it's true and threatening them with eternal tortures in the pit of hell if they don't believe it also."

You know that's not true. There are lots of Christians who believe without needing the threat of eternal tortures in the pit of hell- in fact, many Christians don't even believe in hell.

Just because this guy's an asshat doesn't mean we have to go shitting all over perfectly good people's beliefs.
49
Mr Logopolis - Try Dandelion Dead and the Armstrong case.
50
Warren looks like Falwell in that screen shot.

Must have something to do with what he's full of.
51
"Rick Warren": to ass-punch someone with your nose.

as in: "I Rick-Warrened her, but was surprised by the blowback."
52
@51 omg YES
53

"Some actions are a sin".

Would it be a sin to punch this guy in the nose?

This reminds me how fucking OVER OVER OVER religion I am, after a lifetime of Catholic brainwashing ...

54
The headline Dan put on here is really misleading. I was expecting some sort of rabidly anti-gay hatefest. What I got was a reasonable discourse with a guy (Rick Warren) that I just disagree with.

He's right, though. Those are the type of measured, rational discussions people need to be having on the topic. Cherry-picking simple analogies and citing them as damning evidence of hatemongering, lowers the tone of the discussion to the point of irrelevance.
55
@54 No.

Just because the guy was not frothing at the mouth does not make this a "rational discussion". Warren and those on his side are in favor of denying civil rights, and their views are not based in fact, supported by science, or compatible with the foundational ethos of this country.

That might be very polite hate, but it is still hate.
56
55

actually the science and foundational ethos of the nation kick your ass.

which is why accusing people who try to have a reasonable rational discussion of HATE because they disagree with you is all you've got.

which is way less than nothing.

you are pathetic.
57
@56 What's Rick's rational argument?
58
@57 Where's Rick's hate?
59
58, Where's the hate in wanting a ban on interracial marriage?
60
@58 I don't know that Rick Warren hates anybody. However, he seems to think that public policy should be dictated by his religious beliefs. I think that makes him deeply misguided.
62
@11, @17 - Some acts of violence constitute public service.

@20 -
it matters not one whit if 'gay' is natural or innate.
Agreed. "Natural" and "unnatural" are classifications (and rarely useful ones), not statements of value.
society restricts they way pedophiles may act on their 'natural' 'innate' impulses.
Correct, because there are empirical measures that determine the effect of the acts on juveniles who have sexual contact with adults, as well as the effect on society at large.
if one's aspiration is to emulate bonobos or penguins they should petition to be admitted to the zoo...
Depends on what, in particular, they are trying to emulate. Behaviors should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
63
Danny and Queer,Inc. say that homosexuality is innate and so we have to let them get married, because Negroes and all.
The question of whether it's innate or not matters if we're talking about treating them as a protected class. It does not, in and of itself, have much to do with the value of the trait or the behaviors that arise therefrom.
Just because a trait is innate society does not have to foster, promote or subsidize it.
Indeed. But a civilization founded on liberty should have to meet a high burden of proof in proscribing an activity--showing it harmful not just to voluntary participants, but to others.
Setting aside the question of what harm homosexuality does to the individuals and societies that harbor it; just because a behavior is 'harmless' does not mean society is obligated to foster, promote or subsidize it.
To what subsidy, fostering, or promotion are you referring?
And objective studies (from the era before researchers who uncovered facts unpopular with Queer,Inc were blackballed) demonstrate that homosexuality inflicts a host of psychological and medical harms.
Can the psychological harms be easily extricated from the social stigma attached to said acts? Can the physical harms be extricated from unsafe practices often connected to anonymity in sex? Are they connected to any and all male-male or female-female sexual contact, or only with specific acts neither endemic nor exclusive to homosexuals?
64
60

You seem to be confused.

Marriage laws in this country have not reflected the beliefs of any particular religion.
Mormons don't get polygamy.
Jews don't get Old Testament marriage laws.
Catholics don't get to outlaw divorce.

But now Secular Humanists and Liberal "xtians" come along changing the definition of marriage to reflect their doctrine-of-the-moment.

Erecting chapels in city hall.

Declaring anyone who disagrees with their doctrine to be BIGOTS and HATERS and HOMOPHOBES (Secular Humanist for 'heathen'....)

Establishing chapters (GSA) in public schools to proselytize the One True Way.

Seeking to ban those who disagree from even being heard on public affairs programs on the public airwaves.

Launching witch hunts after researchers who cross them in their work; getting them fired, bringing pressure on journals that publish them.

Sending Grand Inquisitor ACLU lawyers into the hinderland to intimidate the locals into adhering.

If you don't see that HomoSecularHumanism has become the State Religion in the Qunited States of Gaymerica you really haven't been paying attention......
65
Mormons don't get polygamy.
They probably should. But you're changing the subject.
Jews don't get Old Testament marriage laws.
I'm pretty certain they can abide by them to whatever degree they don't run afoul of secular law, or violate right of egress on the part of whichever partner might wish to abandon such a marriage.
Catholics don't get to outlaw divorce.
Nor is their church required to marry anyone who has been divorced. That is, they can practice within the context of their own limitations.
But now Secular Humanists and Liberal "xtians" come along changing the definition of marriage to reflect their doctrine-of-the-moment.
Nothing's been changed but the legal contract. You (the theoretical you; the actual you will never get his dick wet, let alone marry) can define marriage any way you see fit, just as Catholics and Jews could (and can).
Erecting chapels in city hall.
I think you just like saying "erect."

The rest of your post is fiction. As a critic, I'd address it if it were literature, but it's barely writing, even employing the most generous definitions of the word.
66
@64 I think opposition to gay marriage is almost always faith based. There are are arguments against marriage equality that don't rely on religious dogma. Sometimes I make them, to keep the discussion interesting. However, those arguments are kind of weak. Whether they admit it or not, I think the opponents of marriage equality are motivated by their personal religious beliefs. Is there an anti-gay marriage atheist organization?
67
@64: I for one think it's very strange that, whenever you're confronted with facts you don't like about The Gay, you immediately try to brand The Gay as a religion. In your bizarre view of the world, the gay rights movement is attempting to foist religious doctrine onto an unsuspecting public.
Religions, more or less by definition, claim special knowledge of supernatural matters and/or a philosophical or moral high ground. I really can't think of anything within the gay rights movement that could be construed as either. Got any examples, spud?
68
and supporters of homosexual 'marriage'?

they assure us that their god made homosexuals that way
and that the bible endorses homosexuality.

and if you haven't picked up on
smug humanist self-righteous moral superiority
then you don't know any humanists (or read slog)

of course self righteous piety is not unique to humanists;
but the arrogance to brand those who disagree with you haters
who don't deserve to be engaged in civil discourse
does seem to be a particularly humanist virtue...
69
@68 I see marriage equality as something that will provide a substantial benefit to a particular group of people (committed same-sex couples) at little cost to the rest of us. Am I wrong?
70
69

yes.
71
@62, 63, 65

I'm on your side but you sound like a pedantic academic. How's about you go get yourself schooled by Steven Pinker at Harvard about how to communicate in writing:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/20…

72
@70 OK, why am I wrong? This is where civil discussions about same-sex marriage tend to break down. People like you are sure marriage equality will do something bad, but they are never able to say exactly what.
73
@71 - Your advice is meant well, but you presume that the sorry little shit I'm bludgeoning with words is in the market for persuasion. For some, the best we can hope is that they will be shamed into arguing only with those at their own level.

I'd like to think I'm more considerate when writing plays or music reviews (though the audience for either the art I make or the art I like tends to be interested in the esoteric).

I do find it interesting (for lack of a better word) that you're pointing an autodidact with no college degree towards an Ivy League publication for advice on how to more effectively talk down to the semi-literate masses. :) It's actually a really interesting article, but I have to say that my style IS "conversational," in that it resembles the sorts of conversations I have with the people I know (which is why I always find the term to be of dubious utility).
74
71

the only possible explanation is that some outfit pays by the word (and never checks content)
75
@69 - I would go further and say that marriage equality can actually benefit the rest of us, in many of the same ways that traditional marriage already does.

Not that you--or I--will receive anything but cute haikus and content-free jibes about word-count in response to these assertions.
76
@68: ...The Gay rights movement has its own god? Somehow, I've never heard of this. I'm a straight ally, and I pray to the God of Israel. Many people, gay and straight alike, support gay marriage and pray to the same, in the conception of their Holy Trinity. There are gay rights supporters of additional faiths, and still others pray to no gods at all. Who is the god of The Gay rights movement? Answer me that.
77
Now I know why gays never get attacked by sharks.
78
76

Thank you for your comments.

Does the "God of Israel" condemn homosexuality?

Does He/She/It call for capital punishment for homosexuality?

Does your "god" approve of homosexual marriage?
79
@78: No, no, and we don't know.
Who is the god of the Secular HomoLiberal Qunited States of Gommorica, anyway? You say we have our own religion that we are trying to foist on others, but you can't seem to say who we worship or what special understanding of the world we have.
80
79

You don't know?

Have you asked?

Did he answer?....

Cry aloud; for he is a god;

either he is musing,

or he is gone aside,

or he is in a journey,

or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

That's it.

Asleep.

Cry louder. Wake him up and ask.......
81
@80: Equality isn't a religion, and there is no god of equality. Are you tripping?
82
People seeking to change marriage laws want to change civil law to reflect their religious beliefs.

That isn't how it worked in the United States of America.

In the Theocratic HomoLiberal Qunited States of Gaymerica?

stay tuned......
83
@82: You can't seem to explain how it's at all religious. Whenever I ask for elaboration, all I get is repetition. You've said all you have to say, so your only recourse is to say it over and over again. Sad.
84
83

You must not be reading your own posts....

Please. Pay. Careful. Attention.

Does legalizing homosexual "marriage" conform to your religious beliefs?

Does legalizing homosexual "marriage" conform to Kim in Portland's religious beliefs?

Does legalizing homosexual "marriage" conform to Danny's religious beliefs?

etc etc etc etc etc

Please,
produce one advocate of homosexual "marriage" whose personal religious convictions condemn homosexual behavior; whose personal religious convictions condemn homosexual "marriage".

Advocates of homosexual "marriage" have (suddenly) "discovered" that their bible and their "god" want homosexual "marriage". (of course for some of them their "god" is their own great wisdom. whatever....)

And they want to force EVERYONE to accept THEIR new beliefs about marriage.

No. Thanks.

.

Why don't you know what your "god" thinks about homosexual "marriage"?
Are your particular set of superstitions that out of date?
Is your "god" asleep? or dead? or peeved and not talking to you anymore?

85
@84: As far as my religious beliefs go, I take a page from the book of Hillel the Elder: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."
However, I support marriage equality not because of my religious beliefs but rather because of my civic values. My religion has NOTHING to do with my political stances beyond the simple "be decent to people". My religion (Judaism) says nothing about homosexuality, so why do you insist that my support for gay rights is based in it?
This is what you fail to comprehend: one's religion does not necessarily drive one's politics.
86
85

Do your personal religious beliefs condemn homosexuality?

Do your personal religious beliefs condemn homosexual "marriage"?

You may been fooling yourself, but you fool no one else....

You nor the rest of the Theocratic HomoLiberals.
87
85

Does the god you pray to hear you?
Does he ever answer?
Why don't you know what your "god" thinks about homosexual "marriage"?
88
@86: My personal religious beliefs neither condemn nor condone homosexuality. AS I JUST SAID, my religion doesn't even mention it.
@87: God answers my prayers in every instant of my existence, by perpetuating His creation. I don't take political issues to The Almighty, usually, but check who's taking the oath of office next month if you wonder whether my prayers ever get answered. How'd your prayers for the election go?
89
88

we believe that our system of government delivers the quality of government that we, as a people, deserve.
if we, as a people; make selfish, self-serving choices that is the government we will get, and deserve.
of course, selfish self serving choices carry consequences, but we will deserve those as well.
the nation chose Obama with eyes wide open, the economic crash that follows is the inevitable deserved consequence of that choice.

does your god condone stealing from the next two generations to fund 'entitlements' for the current generation?
sad.
those generations will need to find a god more sympathetic to their plight, it seems.....
90
@89: So you admit that there's nothing religious about our support of marriage equality? That's what I get from your pathetic mewlings.
If you want to discuss politics, let's do that in a thread actually about politics. Don't try to phrase political issues as questions of theology; for secularists like me, those two don't mix.
91
Does legalizing homosexual "marriage" conform to your religious beliefs?
My religious beliefs have nothing to do with what I think should be legal. Moral and theological concerns can dovetail with matters of civic utility; murder and theft, for instance, have material, social repercussions separate from my moral and/or religious beliefs in their "wrongness."

As it happens, my belief that homosexuality is not a moral wrong coincides nicely with my political conviction that homosexuals should have equal rights of marriage. On the other hand, I happen to believe incest is morally wrong; I do not, however, think that incest or even consanguineous marriage should be illegal. Moral questions are not legal questions.
92
91

just as we thought.

you wish to change civil law to conform to your moral beliefs.

how special.
93
@92 - No. My post illustrates rather clearly that I do NOT wish for civil law to reflect my beliefs (by pointing out moral values I hold that I do not believe should be legally codified); your post does nothing to refute that (indeed, no post of yours in the whole of our shared history on SLOG has addressed the content of my posts in any way whatsoever).

You tout your brevity as if it's a virtue, but we'd all save lots of words if we didn't even advance an argument; blatant lack of content does not render your mere typing "the soul of wit."

Of course, given such a willfully obtuse "opponent" (I use the word oh-so-generously), non-argument becomes a more attractive option.
94
I think he's not even reading the posts. He waits for someone to say something and then pretends that they said something fallacious and embarrassing. I say that my religion doesn't say anything about gays? He asks me if it does. You say you don't want to impose your personal morality on others? He says you do.
95
93

" my belief that homosexuality is not a moral wrong coincides nicely with my political conviction that homosexuals should have equal rights of marriage."
96
94

its just outrageous.

how does he think he can get away with that shit?
97
@95 - Had your eyes--which I will graciously assume seek truth, even if you seem ill-equipped to recognize it-- read past that point, you'd also have noted that my belief that incest IS a moral wrong pointedly does NOT coincide with my belief that we cannot, in any reasonable fashion, legally proscribe incest or consanguineous marriage.

Moral interests and civic interests CAN dovetail. But legal interests have a hurtle to face that moral interests do not--specifically, prevention of an empirically demonstrable civic harm (if it's a question of proscribing an activity), or service of an empirically demonstrable civic utility (when subsidizing an activity or allowing the state to recognize or bestow certain contractual rights).
98
97

the question before the body is whether proponents of homopsexual "marriage" are seeking to force their morality upon the entire society.
the gentleman has answered in the affirmative.
99
@98 - Am I, as a proponent of homosexual marriage, seeking to force my morality upon society? No, because my moral beliefs about homosexuality are IRRELEVANT to my political beliefs about marriage equality; that they happen to dovetail is immaterial, because legality and morality are fundamentally separate. Furthermore, nothing is being forced on you, as you (again, the figurative you, 'cause there ain't a woman on this planet fucked in the head enough to let you near her) can marry on whatever basis you see fit, can teach your (strictly hypothetical) children whatever you see fit about marriage, and can associate yourself with whatever church would a) have you (can't be many) and b) reflect your views on what marriage should be. Thus your sad, dark little corner of society can continue to define marriage according to your own beliefs; each of us can have those marriages sanctioned by the state, at no great expense to the other.

I don't have a sister; I consider those who wish to bang their sisters gross and immoral. But I don't consider it my place to constrain them from doing so via the instrument of the state. This is the OPPOSITE of wishing to impose my moral views on society via the state. That, of course, has already been stated rather clearly for anyone who can actually read.
100
To put it another way . . .

the gentleman has answered in the affirmative.
I don't know about any "gentlemen," but this man has answered in the negative; you have made no case to the contrary.