Talk:Rick Warren/Archive 8

POV tag
A POV tag is rather serious and needs specific actionable items to be followed up, so other editors can either address the issue, answer the concern otherwise and discuss the merits. Phoenix of9, you added the tag, but we don't tie these specifically to RfCs. Your intentions might be noble but to keep that tag please suggest actionable item(s), (concisely) so others can sort out the merits for any changes, additions or deletions. -- Banj e b oi   04:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll copy & paste:    The article is currently not from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view since it simply says "This decision angered pro-choice and gay-marriage advocates and led to criticism of both Obama and Warren.[11]". This is only partially true since some (or maybe most) of the criticism was due to Warren comparing gay relationship with pedophiles and incest AND his other previous remarks. Reaction against Warren was not only due to his opposition to gay marriage. The article lacks that.
 * As for if Warren did or did not compare gay relationships with pedophiles and incest, many people thought he did and there are many reliable sources for this. But I propose to include a direct quote from him in the article. See User_talk:Phoenix_of9/warren#LGBT_issues Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to go look elsewhere, except to reliable sources, as we want to keep this centralized. It sounds like your POV concern is that Warren was criticized for comments comparing gay relationships to pedophilia and incest as well as similar remarks but this is absent from the article or is otherwise deflated. Does this correctly summarize the concern? If so, I'm not sure we need to include a direct quote, although it may help, but let's focus on the best reliable sourcing and wording if this is the concern. Do you have some proposed wording and sourcing? -- Banj e  b oi   04:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The best reliable source is the transcript of the interview itself. . And I already told you, the proposed wording and sourcing is here: User talk:Phoenix of9/warren. Too much information has been ommitted in the current version. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to step back to ensure I'm reading the issue accurately though, It sounds like your POV concern is that Warren was criticized for comments comparing gay relationships to pedophilia and incest as well as similar remarks but this is absent from the article or is otherwise deflated. Does this correctly summarize the concern? -- Banj e  b oi   05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Among others. I was also gonna add more details about other issues. Actually, I dont think that is contested so I'll go ahead and do them so the only remaining issue would be this. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is, though, that the quote taken from the interview is an example of Contextomy, where the given quote is taken in a context that is contra to the greater context of the interview. In order to avoid Contextomy, it would take including a number of paragraphs of the interview - giving ever greater wp:undue weight to the issue.  Yes, he was criticized for supposedly making the comparison (which the transcript, in context, refutes), and he later re-emphasized that he was talking about marriage (defined as between a man and a woman), and not homosexual practice and equivalency.  As noted in the previous discussion, Phoenix_of9 is unwilling to take Warren's stated intent in good faith, but rather as some sort of hidden homophobia.  This, also brings the question of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP into discussion, which policy dictates should leave this matter out of the article, since it is a WP:BLP, in which we err on the side of good faith statements made by the subject.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, it is your personal view that it is taken out of context. And again, as I said, your personals views were, have always been and are irrelevant. So is my personal opinion. Warren may claim he isnt a homophobe or he didnt compare gay relationships to pedophilia and incest but just because he claims it does not make it true.
 * Now below is the relevant part. Because it's from Rachel Maddow, with the the msnbc as a source, which is reliable. This is after Warren claimed he didnt compare gay relationships to pedophilia and incest but Maddow disagrees. Therefore theres a reliable source which thinks this wasnt taken out of context:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WARREN: I have been accused of equating gay partnerships with incest and pedophilia. Now, of course, as members of Saddle Back Church, you know, I believe no such thing. I never have. You‘ve never once heard me in 30 years talk that way about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: I think I remember once - I think I remember once, remember this?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WARREN: I‘m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and calling that marriage. I‘m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I‘m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

WARREN: I do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: “Do you think those are equivalent? Oh, I do.” Right. So Warren did equate being gay with pedophilia and incest.
 * Now, as I said, just because you or CarverM doesnt agree with this interpretation does not mean you can delete it, Wikipedia is not your soapbox. If there is a reliable source which sees things the way you see them, feel free to add that information, quoting that source. I was already going to add Warrens claim that he isnt a homophobe and he didnt compare gay relationships with incest and pedophilia. Now, thats NPOV, giving both sides of the issue. And this is notable because it had a huge media coverage. Warren was in the news even here, in Canada. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maddow is not a news source - she is a source of editorial opinion. Just because she's chosen the error of Contextomy doesn't mean it ought to be propagated.  This is not my opinion, but rather, fact.  In the same way that a segment of the Rush Limbaugh show wouldn't constitute a reliable source, neither would Maddow.  Warren says specifically that he is not a homophobe, and he has clarified his position (as noted in the linked beliefnet transcript). It is in bad faith that an article, a wp:blp, would operate from an assumption that the subject of the article is lying about his opinion on a subject - particularly after specifically clarifying it.  It is bad faith to make an assumption that it isn't true, which is (just one reason) why it should not be included.  (I would also note the irony in your trying to make use of wp:soap in your defense)--Lyonscc (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it is in bad faith given the other things Warren said and his actions. And here are the news sources: "In fact, he has compared same-sex nuptials to approving polygamy and pedophilia." and "Mr. Warren compared same-sex couples to incest. I found that deeply offensive and unfair," Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said in a broadcast interview.
 * Btw, this section should be merged with the RFC section. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Who rightly cares what Barney Frank said? Again, he's synthesizing something that Warren did not specifically say.  Synthesis is synthesis, regardless of whether it is done by a wikipedia editor or a crooked (or non-crooked, if there is such a thing) politician, or the host of a political commentary show.  Tina Daunt, a political writer for the LA Times, is the source of the other quote - not Warren.  And again, we have a synthesis of his quote, not a direct quote, itself.  I would note, from the other side of the spectrum, that Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh often characterize statements made by figures they dislike in creating straw men of their positions.  As a wikipedia editor, I wouldn't allow their synthesis to stand as a "verifiable source", either, as their opinions would hold the same encyclopedic weight as Frank, Daunt and Maddow, which is to say none.  When you find a quote in which Warren says that homosexual practice is the moral equivalent of pedophilia or incest, you have no case, because at this point in time Warren has specifically said he does not believe this.  So, to characterize it any other way is to take Warren's statements in bad faith.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, we come back to the issue of a direct quote which I proposed along with Warren's later claim that he didnt mean it. Again, I want all the information to be there and you want to delete it all. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is because the direct quote you've proposed is out of context from the interview, itself, which is about marriage, not homosexual practice, and does not support your synthesis. The link to the interview is already referenced in the article, so is there really any need to quote it or offer others' synthesis of it?--Lyonscc (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There can be no synthesis since it is an untouched direct quote. Also note that Warren failed to clarify this issue while he clarified other issues in beliefnet.com transcript. He claimed he didnt make the comparison only after protests. And I've shown you sources which think it wasnt taken out of context. This concludes our discussion, I'll wait for other people's comments. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply reading the entire transcript or the video demonstrates that the quote is out of context. The additional sources cited are the syntheses I'm referring to.  Warren has specifically clarified that he was NOT making a moral equivalency, but was referring to the institution of marriage (as between a man and a woman) - which was the topic of the interview.  Taking his quote out of context - as an inference in direct contradiction to his clarification - is not in line with wp:NPOV or WP:BLP.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I wrote in the thread above, that has bubbled to the top of this page, there are two reliable sources (major newspapers) that have reported on this exchange. In the Los Angeles Times, a relatively local paper to Warren: "In fact, he has compared same-sex nuptials to approving polygamy and pedophilia." Also, the Memphis Commercial Appeal: "In a well circulated video interview posted on YouTube, Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church in Southern California, compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia, incest and polygamy." Both of these make it clear that Warren's comments were specifically with regard to same-sex marriage. There is no need to construct further synthesis using the video, or to even refer to Maddow (who if referred to at all in this article must be referred to as a political commentator who said whatever she said). I should also note that a synthesis that appears in a reliable source in a hard news article may certainly be used as a reference; the LAT/Tina Daunt article was a hard news piece and as far as I know it hasn't been the subject of a correction by the Times. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Daunt article contains the author's synthesis of Warren's statement - which he issued a clarification to, in contradiction to Daunt's interpretation. As such, we should assume good faith toward Warren in the intent of his comment, as taken in the full context of the interview.  Regardless, even if Daunt's interpretation were allowed, it still would not rise to the level of notability, and would give wp:undue weight to a singular issue which already comprises 5-10% of the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how about this? "It was claimed that Warren compared compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia, incest and polygamy, (sources here) based on his beliefnet.com interview (sources here). Warren rejected this claim (sources here)." I think this portrays the event in a neutral way. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good, it shouldn't be significantly longer than that. I've been away from all this for a while - what is the reference for Warren's clarification/rejection? I was under the impression that that was where the limitation of the comment only to same-sex marriage came from (as well as what he said in the original tape) which is in fact how the LAT article describes it. It's not clear where the above "5-10%" calculation is coming from, since there are only a few sentences covering LGBT matters or even opposition to his views. This one item received considerable attention, including from, as I keep saying and as others insist he's just a commentator, Frank Rich in the NYT (note I'm not suggesting citing Rich) and it seems to to be an obvious omission considering the depth of other details in the article. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Here: Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no depth of detail in other articles - it is all the same specious claim based on the same out of context quote. Here's an expanded quote, with the continually cited out of context portion bolded:


 * Note that his answer to the question is all about marriage and its definition, including his summation: I just don’t believe in the redefinition of marriage. Thus, those here on wikipedia and a handful of commentators who have taken Warren's words out of context don't deserve mention, as it is an obvious case of hyper-sensitivity and contextomy.  Now, I have a number of issues (some social, some theological) with Rick Warren, some of which are documented in the article, some of which are not.  At the same time, though, I believe in the spirit of WP:BLP in that a person's biography page is not the forum for everyone who's got an axe to grind with the subject to air their grievances.  And the ironic thing here is that Warren is consistently criticized within fundamentalist Christianity for soft-pedaling the gay issue and for NOT condemning them to hell, outright, which makes this line of commentary all the more ludicrous.  In this particular case, the article was locked for an extended period of time, and immediately upon the lock being removed, a new editor, with an axe to grind, showed up with wholesale changes.  At this rate, I'd rather just see it return to the locked version with slower changes, since the article is being targeted by two grievance groups from opposite ends of the spectrum, which so often leads to edit wars with this particular article.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My reference to "depth of detail" was not to this matter, but more generally to the fact that this (Wikipedia) article includes plenty of other detail on Warren, his life and what he does, most of which is pretty much unknown to a secular audience and/or those who might find his views either offensive or threatening. My point is that if the article is to include all that relatively obscure detail, why does it not include a detail about a notable controversy that did appear in the secular press in various forms? Further, I can't make sense of what you're saying about context here. The primary source tape is pretty clear: "I‘m opposed to (series of things here) and calling that marriage." "You think those are equivalent to gays getting married?" "I do." I agree: Warren's context, for him, is all about marriage, a definition, and what he thinks should be legal, in what I would posit (after long observation of such conflicts) is a legalistic world without people in it. Observers who believe they are targeted by what Warren says don't necessarily find the distinction(s) that you are focusing on, between the act, the people performing the act, and the legality of the act, to be particularly important. But to restore context I'll take a crack at rewording the first proposed sentence: "It was claimed that Warren likened the legalization of same-sex marriage to the act of legalizing pedophilia, incest and polygamy, (sources here) based on his beliefnet.com interview (sources here)." Despite my putting this forward, I still believe Phoenix of9's original wording to be sufficient, again because it can be supported by at least two sources. To put it another way: a secular audience and a secular press will not find the distinction you are trying to make relevant; it smacks of "love the sin hate the sinner" "hate the sin love the sinner" which from where I see it is peculiar to, and only particularly relevant to, a Christian audience. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I applaud PhoenixOf9's efforts here, but i would point out that he is being stonewalled by the same exact stubborn refusal to permit citations which i encountered a few weeks ago during my attempts to mention Notable events in the Biography. Can everybody see how the christianist viewpoint insists upon sanitizing whatever appears critical of Warren, while permitting only that which laud's Warren in a positive light? Look at how much of this Discussion page is devoted to editors fighting with christianists who keep deleting citations and direct quotations while claiming "undue weight". And then this refrain of "BLP requires a particular standard" is being used to cloak the quashing of any presentation of objective data (i.e., interviews, actual footage and transcripts, etc). PhoenixOf9, i hope you make it farther upstream despite being obstructed by the whitewashing efforts. Teledildonix314 talk 22:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Christianist? And you're accusing me of using this as a soap-box?--Lyonscc (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * From WP:BLP:


 * I would note that this is a) contentious; b) about a living person; and c) poorly sourced (in that the citations are not quotes from Warren, but out-of context interpretations that he has refuted). Thus, it doesn't belong.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The proposed sentences are in no way "poorly sourced," there being at least two hard-news reliable sources here including the Los Angeles Times as I have pointed out here multiple times. You are merely disputing the accuracy of a reliable source's reporting. I have seen no rationale why the reporting of reliable sources of this matter should be excluded since the objections seem to consist merely of the personal opinions of editors, or to be charitable, "original research" which is certainly excluded from Wikipedia. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "reliable source" is reporting that Warren said something that he has specifically refuted. While it might be from a "hard news" outlet, it would be classified as the writer's opinion (unless you can find a direct quote from Warren that explicitly conveys this), and not "hard news" in, and of, itself.  The subject of the WP:BLP disagrees with the contention about what he believes.  It seems pretty cut and dried a violation of WP:BLP to include it.  I would note again that the mis-characterization arises from taking out of context Warren's "I do" without the remainder of his explanation.  Trying to justify includsion based upon the ignorance of a reporter to understand the nuance of what was being said doesn't seem to be adequate justification to go against the spirit of WP:BLP.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I got your point. You believe that Warren's views were taken out of context. I read the whole interview too, and your explanation, and CarverM's explanation but I still believe it wasnt taken out of context, based on other things Warren said and his actions. And I didnt find his later rejection as sincere. But as I said both are opinions are irrelevant.
 * Some people (ie: backed by reliable sources) thought Warren made the comparison. There is reliable sources for this and it should be in the article. You cant deny that some people (ie: backed by reliable sources) made a claim which Warren rejected. Hence the claim and Warren's rejection should be in the article. It is notable. It saw huge media coverage. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still not following you (Lyonscc) here. There is a lot of puffery in the quote following "Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?/Oh, I do." None of it contradicts "Oh, I do." He has denied homophobia. He has insisted he objects to the "redefinition of marriage." He has denied directly comparing gay sex to pedophilia, incest and polygamy. But there's nothing there, there is no "specific refutation" as you call it, that says that he doesn't equate the act of legalizing gay marriage to the act of legalizing any of those three things. That is my point; that's precisely what the LA Times reporter wrote ("In fact, he has compared same-sex nuptials to approving polygamy and pedophilia."); there is no "nuance" that is in any way worth noting relative to the clarity of those three words, "Oh, I do." If anything his insinuation that legalizing gay marriage would lead to preachers being guilty of "hate speech" is inflammatory in its own way (and commented on in various places, but outside the scope of this article.) Please note that you are not editing a theological journal here, and as far as I can tell you've come up with a novel interpretation of Warren's flowery postscript of weasel language to dispute the clarity of what he said, both in the primary source and in the reporting of reliable sources. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Oh, I do" is in agreement as to the institution of marriage, not the moral equivalency of homosexual practice to pedophilia or incest (or polygamy, which was also in the list). That is why taking "Oh, I do" alone is misleading and out of context.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll copy and paste this. Fact is there was a claim against Warren and he rejected it. Both the claim and rejection should be in the article.
 * I got your point. You believe that Warren's views were taken out of context. I read the whole interview too, and your explanation, and CarverM's explanation but I still believe it wasnt taken out of context, based on other things Warren said and his actions. And I didnt find his later rejection as sincere. But as I said both are opinions are irrelevant.
 * Some people (ie: backed by reliable sources) thought Warren made the comparison. There is reliable sources for this and it should be in the article. You cant deny that some people (ie: backed by reliable sources) made a claim which Warren rejected. Hence the claim and Warren's rejection should be in the article. It is notable. It saw huge media coverage. Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not mischaracterize my comments; reread what I wrote, where I said nothing about using those three words without supporting context. I made it clear that what he was saying by "Oh, I do" was with respect to his comparison of "same-sex nuptials to approving polygamy and pedophilia" and not to "homosexual practice." No one is suggesting taking those three words out of context and I don't understand why you are repeatedly saying those three words are being taken out of context. The relevant quote from the LA Times article, for the umpteenth time, does not include those words, instead the LA Times reporter wrote, "he has compared same-sex nuptials to approving polygamy and pedophilia," which is an accurate description of what he said and makes the context clear. Mike Doughney (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Wow, I ask that everyone take a deep breath here and be cautious about characterizing other editors beliefs or action and making statements that are generally antagonistic. Let's just leave it at that, no one, I hope, wants to get blocked simply over a disagreement. -- Banj e  b oi   04:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed content "A"
Obama's choosing Warren for the inaugural invocation was seen as controversial because of Warren's outspokeness against abortion and same-sex marriage and the position was a "prominent, central role in the ceremony which is supposed to usher in a new civil rights era." In a December 2008 Beliefnet interview Warren stated that "if gay marriage were permissible, why not incest, polygamy or 'an older guy marrying a child'?" Warren later released a video message to his church that he opposes redefining marriage and does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia. At the same time, Warren's church replaced an article on their website about the Bible and homosexuality that included [gays] "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members with a message that explained the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

Proposal "A" discussion

 * Support. As nominator. Prop 8 content can be woven in as appropriate as sourcing does. Also to address the "blog", it is the political blog of the New York Times which would certainly be considered reliable source here. I'm sure more can be found. 20:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:Again, it kinda ignores "the equivelant" issue. And his 3rd source seems to be a blog. Also I think we should include something about Warren questioning if homosexuality is natural. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated, that is the political blog of the New York Times which would certainly be considered reliable source here, we can certainly find even more sources so there is little doubt. -- Banj e  b oi   21:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And again, it misrepresents the reaction against Warren. The reaction against Warren and him giving the invocation was not simply due to his opposition to same-sex marriage. Eg: 'The first openly gay member of Congress said yesterday that it was a mistake for President-elect Barack Obama to invite the Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. "Mr. Warren compared same-sex couples to incest. I found that deeply offensive and unfair," said  Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). ' . Obama is also against same sex marriage. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear what you're saying, but at best that leads to some gay activists were offended which seems a short-term knee-jerk statement rather than a long-term neutral one. We need to present that Warren clarified the comments that were criticized and, when sourced, the rationale, in this case that he was concerned about redefining marriage. -- Banj e  b oi   21:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats why I said: "It was claimed that Warren compared compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia, incest and polygamy". He made some sort of comparison afterall eventho he later denied it. He didnt put it like the way u put it, initially.Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Content "B"
(A sub section within political and social views called "LGBT issues")

It was claimed that Warren compared compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia, incest and polygamy, based on his beliefnet.com interview. Warren rejected this claim. Asked if he was homophobic in another interview, he said he was not. Before a Lamebth conference in 2008, he supported the decision by Ugandan bishops to boycott it to protest the Church of England's tolerance of homosexuality after Gene Robinson was elected as a bishop by The US Episcopal Church. Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right. "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all," Dr Warren said. However, in his belifnet.com interview he supported full equal rights for everybody in America, but later clarified that civil union is not a civil right. According to The Advocate, Warren's Saddleback Church once had language on its website explicitly stating that "unrepentant" gays and lesbians were not welcome. These were later removed after Obama asked Warren to give the invocation at his Presidential inauguration.

(and info about Prop 8) Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal "B" discussion

 * Support Obviously. But it's still open to rewording, etc... Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Prior discussion

 * I'm archiving this to preserve discussion but breaking apart the added proposal so they can be discussed separately. -- Banj e  b oi   20:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I left out Prop 8 issues here for the moment although they certainly played a role as well. If appropriate they could be woven with this as well as the sources certainly link the issues together. -- Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   04:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't sweat it; you did some good research there. Spotfixer (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I added my own proposal. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer the first version. Bringing in the Episcopals and Ugandans overcomplicates the section. Benjiboi's proposal is clear and crisp. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My problem with that it kinda ignores "the equivelant" issue. And his 3rd source seems to be a blog. Also I think we should include something about Warren questioning if homosexuality is natural.

Now people ask me all the time what do you think about homosexuality, OK? Well, I don't approach it -- I approach it like this. When you look at a female body and you look at a male body it seems that naturally certain parts go together.... WARREN: Well, again, I would just say I think to me the issue is, is it natural? Is it the natural thing? I mean here's an interesting thing I have to ask. How can you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution and homosexuality at the same time? Now think about this.

If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool.Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither is actually on point for a biography. "Warren's traditional religious views on sexuality and marriage drew fire from gay activists." basically covers the issue as far as I can tell.  Collect (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean Christian traditions? Then you can summarize his position on environment and poverty as liberal I guess and summarize all his views with 2 sentences. Phoenix of9 (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WRT his theologoy, it is not at all an unusual theology within the SBC at all. The detail which some desire to place in here quite improperly is roughly the equivalent of saying the Pope backs ritual cannibalism (in the form of the Mass). You can find a cite for the claim, but it does not make the claim proper for the BLP at all.  Warren is not a theoretical theologian, he is a Baptist pastor, and that is all that is salient on this issue. Collect (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet, he is also someone who was invited to a major government ceremony. Opinions of a KKK member may not be notable relative to KKK but of course if that member was invited to a government ceremony, that relatively unnoticable position would become noticable. Btw, this is just an example, not comparing Warren to KKK. Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also gonna copy and paste this here: Note that this is the English Wikipedia. It is global. Just because some views have regional (ie: US) significance does not mean they arent notable. Also note that US is the only Western country that deviates from the norm when it comes to homosexuality. (eg: US is the only country where more people think homosexuality should be rejected (49%) vs accepted (41%) among the surveyed Western countries (Europe and N America) ). In Sweden, even 68% of pastors are ok with same sex marriage. . So Warren's views and the way he puts them are surprising (so is yours) to some people, including me, both as a Canadian and a German. But you are right about the views of vast majority of practicing Christians since those people are now mostly in Africa, Latin America and US. However, these events are notable, it had a big media coverage. Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Godwin's Law!! Now you compare Warren to a KKK member -- sure sign the discussion has reached its end. Collect (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you not read? "Btw, this is just an example, not comparing Warren to KKK" Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

a