 |
|
|
|
|
November 28th, 2012
05:49 AM ET
Rick Warren on gay marriageAmerican evangelical Christian pastor Rick Warren discusses homosexuality and gay marriage with CNN's Piers Morgan. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
| Part of 
{Bienvenido a la tienda española oficial The North Face. Aquí puedes comprar con envío gratuito
north face precios http://ofertasorthface.blogspot.com
Poor clown.
I am a little offended that Piece accused Rick of "hiding" behind his belief. I love this debate about the gay gene. If scientist some day find a gene that proves a pre-disposition to all or any other things determined "bad" by society, will we all be required to accept their behavior as "normal". What if it was murder? or Pedophila? Would we need to accept those behaviors because they were genetically predisposed to this behavior. I hope I know the answer, but sadly, in time, there may no longer be any definitive forms of what is or is not acceptable in society any longer.
I clicked-in thinking this was a story about young boys encountering a mastodon. Instead, I had to watch a populist fop interview a mastodon. COME on, CNN.
Why do we have to hear on the CNN news everyday and night about gay marriage, they are 2% of the population but you continue to cover this endlessly?
yep, why dont we just feed them to the ANTS..
2%? You need to find a new source for your data. try 9-14%. That's a low ball.
Why do we have to hear about gay marriage on CNN every night, so sick of it, they are 2% of the population , why do you jam this down our throats every night and day?
@Margaret
You said, "Why do we have to hear about gay marriage on CNN every night, so sick of it, they are 2% of the population , why do you jam this down our throats every night and day?"
Once the country as a whole gets its act together and stops discriminating against gays and lesbians, the news will subside. Until there is equality, expect the issue to remain newsworthy. The fastest way to get it out of the news is to start to actively support equal rights.
This evening, Monday, December 10, 2012, I listened to the comments made by both Piers Morgan, CNN, and his panel with regard to the Australian DJs' recent prank and the ensuing death of a nurse in a British Hospital. At the outset, a prank in and of itself energetically victimizes, manipulates, takes advantage of another, or others. The rush is seeing if you can successfully pull off the prank. In all pranks, there is a victim and a victor. As pertains to the recent incident with the Australian DJs, they showed total disregard for another – respecting the privacy policy enforced by the hospital healthcare staff, the privacy and well-being of the family, as well as of the patient. Rather, the DJs were only thinking of themselves as they engaged in their immature, adolescent behavior. Second, they negated the responsibilities of the healthcare staff, with special consideration extended to the deceased nurse. Healthcare professionals take oaths to do no harm to their patients, to ensure confidentiallity, to enforce both hospital and community policies, regulations. For a nurse to be duped while doing her job, to be disrespected and professionally compromised is shameful, irreprehensible. It is apparent the DJs could have cared less about the pride and esteem with which the desceased nurse conducted herself, and for which she is remembered. In short, the DJs were self-serving, self-absorbed, insensitive, arrogant...children at the playground. Pranks are a form of bullying, power over, undermining another. In the case of the DJs, their behavior was also deceitful, diminishing. May the DJs feel proud. Perhaps, next time, the DJs will not be so eager to pull one over; rather, they will put their egos aside and think twice before pulling another prank. Mela Ferrer LCSW
Please somebody come up with some solid concrete evidence that hom.ose.xu.ality is both a genetic predisposition and also a rigid se.xual paradigm. I'll help you out........
Both have not and cannot be scientifically proven. Until then, it will be a choice, not a predisposition.
There is more evidence that s3xual orientation is not a choice than there is for the existence of any supernatural being.
Cannot be scientifically proven? You truly are awesome, with your complete, infallible knowledge. First the Pope opens a Twitter account, ... then he starts posting comments under CNN stories (but why the "Common Sense" handle, your Emminence?).
It's the belief blog with it's lack of likes and dislikes.
Ricky, you can come out of the closet now. Your wife-in-name can stop lying for you.
If you allow g-ay then bestia-list, ped0phile, polygamist will be next in line
point#2, there is linkage between g-ay and ped0phile
Please cite scientific sources. Note wiki doesn't count nor xtian-based sources as they are suspect. I mean real scientific sources.
"there is linkage between g-ay and ped0phile"
No there is not. You must read those well known hate group sites that post bogus research. The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. There is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.
Your prejudice opinion is not based on real facts.
tvangelist: you are just talking trash. go home, boy...get your shinebox
Isn't it a mortal sin for believers to lie?
Teabagger
No there isn't you ignorant, bigoted moron.
No there is no linkage to being gay and being a pedophile. Please do not try to mislead people by stating your opinion as fact. Thanks
yep, they are all linked by what you call, "FREAK bond"...
THERE it is, ... my "wake up and smell the mouth breathing ignorance" post of the morning. Thank you, Teavangelist.
there is a link, and the gays dont like the outcome of that, this is why they are so rapid to defend & deny it.
Rick Warren like other cons who falsely claim to preach God's teachings are trying to influence the political landscape of this country so they can control & run this country.
yep, run this country NORMALLY is ok....and not run by 2% freaks like you...lol
The justices' decision will likely resolve an ongoing battle between scientists who believe that genes carrying the secrets of life should not be exploited for commercial gain
From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, ga-y s-exual activity is still mutual mas-turbation caused by one or more complex s-exual differences. Some differences are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell.
Yes, heteros-exuals practice many of the same "moves" but there is never a doubt who is the female and who is the male.
As noted, there are basic biological differences in gay unions vs. heterose-xual marriage. Government benefits where approved are the same in both but making the distinction is important for census data and for social responses with respect to potential issues with disease, divorce and family interactions.
For example at http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d61a.pdf , there is a check box for "unmarried partner" under Person #2. There of course is also a check box for "husband/wife". One assumes a gay couple could check this latter box but how does one choose which is which for a gay union?
his religious beliefs are absolutely, utterly and completely irrelevant to me. they always fall back on their religion as the basis of their legal opinions and those religious tenets are totally irrelevant in a secular discussion of basic human rights. his religious beliefs would get him stoned to death in 50% of the world; the fact that he is protected from that persecution in our country is ironic considering his willingness to subjugate an entire group of people based on the freedom of opinion he's granted as a citizen of our country.
@Cheese
"her mother called her and said 'I understand you don't believe in god but don't be an atheist'. "
Why would you (or she) think it important to convince anyone that you were an atheist when that person was just fine with you not beleiving in god?
This person gets that her daughter doesn't believe in god and doesn't seem to have an issue with it. Theonly reason for wanting to have a label then is for the daughter. She doesn't go around labeling everything else she doesn't believe in. She isn't an aunicornist, so there's something special here about wanting to specify this particular group. Maybe she doesn't care but was just making a funny point about her mothers ignorance, but you do. Do you:
1. Want to have some sort of community?
2. Want to upset people to make a point?
It's totally normal to want a community with a label to belong to...this is done in all societies throughout time. But this is a label of negation. When someone asks what religion you are, they want to know what you do believe, not what you don't. If someone said "what relgion are you?" Would you answer, "I'm not really religious, I'm an adarmaist" (or aunicornist or whatever)? I don't think you would, you're just picking one negative thing to define yourself as. You want a label, most people, like the mother in this case, don't care that much.
And when they do they aren't looking for a negative, for what you don't believe in. They also aren't just looking for a metaphysical answer, they also want to know your ethics...what you're about and what your values are. A lot of other answers fill this. "I'm a humanist", "I'm a Spinozan", "I'm a teleologist", "I'm a non practicing Unitarian" whatever. If they ask about gods, well, "I don't believe in a god in the Christian sense though there may be one in a pantheist sense"...whatever. That's what they're looking for. You can still get into what you believe but you don't need the label. And if you do want a community, there's no point in making it one of negation. There are pleny of atheistic Buddhists but you don't see them going around calling themselves atheists.
Posted in wrong place, reposting in correct.
Saraswati,
I am going to post here as now it is more convienient.
You said...."Why would you (or she) think it important to convince anyone that you were an atheist when that person was just fine with you not beleiving in god?"
"Atheist" and "not believing in god" are the same thing....hence it was a joke, her mother was acting like they were not one in the same. I know you are hung up on the "ist" portion of "atheist" but really, it is just a word. I describe myself with many terms, man, father, friend, ect. It is not the word, it is the meaning behind the word. Why should anyone not offended by my "lack of belief" suddenly be offended because I call my religious position "atheism"? I don't have an issue for atheist being a term of positive belief because I am positive all of the personal gods defined by man are fiction, so in that respect I am making a positive claim of belief. Would it make any difference if I called myself a "non-believer"? If so why?
1. "1. Want to have some sort of community?"
Not sure what you mean by that, there are non-believer communities available, some that refer to themselves as atheist communities, the one that I am associated with is called a "freethought" community.
The website Dictionary.com gives the following definition of "religion."
1.
a.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b.A personal or insti.tutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4.A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Clearly, definitions 1-3 do not apply to atheists since we reject the notions of supernatural powers and spiritual leaders. Definition 4 could possibly apply to atheists, but then, it could also apply to a bowling league or a Britney Spears fan club. The claim that atheism is a religion is generally made by Christians who have been religious all their lives and thus cannot conceive of anyone not having some kind of religion as an integral part of their lives.
It's instructive to point out that theism is not a religion either. Theism simply has to do with believing in a god, which one can very easily do without engaging in any sort of religious activity—to wit, the practice of worshipping that god. A person who believes a deity or higher power exists, but never in his life sees fit to go to a church or pray or partake in any kind of practice designed to worship or revere that deity, would be theistic, but not religious.
Atheism, which is about not believing in god(s), and theism, which is about believing in god(s), are philosophical or theological points of view, but they are not religions.
2. Want to upset people.
If people get upset because I refer to myself as an atheist it is not my problem, that is their problem. There is no rational reason to get upset about that term or to get offended that I refer to myself as such. And I have seen the term "humanist" be vilified too, if I refer to myself as a "humanist" and theist get offended that I refer to myself as such should I stop using that as well?
@BATC,
I think we have some fundamental ethical differences with regard to the role of the individual and language in a social context that mean we've gotten everything out of this we can without changing not only a few premises but some life values.
Thank you for the conversation, though, it was great to toss the ideas around with you and clarify some things, both in my own thinking and the perspective you're coming from. One thing about internet discussions is that you'll never know if I sit up six months from now when pondering some issue and say, "Oh THAT was what Cheesy meant by that!" So I thank you too ahead of time for any additional side effects that tend to rattle out of conversations for me well down the line.
Piers Morgan is correct in his science. Parading nude for Gay Pride is absurd. San Francisco should not have allowed it from the start. Rick Warren cannot voice his private opinion, if he has one.
He's delusional, a liar, a charlatan, a thief and pathetic. Cretins like this are clueless about science.
Piers..?