I think Rick Warren is an opportunistic pig, however, how come every time we hear about "outraged leaders" of this and that, they are always obscure unheard-of's?

And So what! There is always going to be someone with their pants in a knot about something, why not juts recognize this for what it is ---- the neutering of the "religious right" on Obamas first day in office!

I can see it now. At his next press conference, Obama will be ducking purses thrown at him by outraged gay journalists.

Pro-Lifers Rip Rick Warren on Obama Invocation
December 18, 2008

So let me get straight to the point.

Liberals and gay activists aren't happy with Barack Obama for choosing pro-life and prop 8 supporting pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama's inaugural. But pro-life readers seem to be equally upset at Rick warren for agreeing to it.

The Brody File has been flooded with emails and most of them absolutely rip Pastor Warren for doing this. Below is but a very small sampling. I can't reprint all of them but let me just say that pro-lifers are NOT happy with Warren at all.

Andrew Sullivan wrote on the Atlantic Web site, "[It's] shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now."

Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans

hee hee

heh heh. "back end"

If 0bama wants to use Rev. Warren as a strap-on for his inauguration I'm hoping the invocation is K-Y free. Ouch!

The Obama cabinet choices - and now "the Rev." Warren as an irrelevant exclamation point - are surely not there to please the people who REALLY worked to elect our new president. Still no Kucinich, no Nader or Gore in the cabinet, and now righty's Moose-lim commie terrorist must explain why he feels we need an invocation at all. herm

and on cnn last night As I mentioned on the nooner

the leftwing kook named hilary rosen....and all the proof you need that she is a kook is to mention that she writes for the huffington post

she was almost SHOUTING AT THE CAMERA AND THE OTHERS THERE OVER THIS...

( get it..shouting and I use caps..pretty clever dont you think?)

and ALSO...obama has picked some preacher who is pro gay marriag to give the closing prayer..

so whats wrong with a little FAIR AND BALANCED????

uh oh,

Number 2,538,394,683,209,947,326th loss to the liberal democrats. How can a population stand to lose at everything and keep on ticking.

Although I bet AIDS, Cancer, and Syphilis are all envious of you folks but don't worry, the rest of us still consider the liberal democrat as a moron of such magnitude, that it is worth striving in medicine to extend life as long as we can to watch these terrible circumstances occur through your lives....

Obama defends

But Obama told reporters in Chicago that America needs to "come together," even when there's disagreement on social issues. "That dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about," he said.

Obama also said he's known to be a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays and lesbians, and will remain so.

BN-
Right. You were just stating on another thread how Muslim terrorists are "liberal democrats".

"Right. You were just stating on another thread how Muslim terrorists are "liberal democrats"."

yep, head-on back and see my response. Don't expect to transform from your birthright as a consequence however. There is no cure as you're just several generations from enlightenment. We wish your namesake luck...

but corky....I agree but you also have to admit that the far left wing is once again getting moved to the side...........and they just cant like this
I predict that somewhere during his prayer that some liberal ass will do something to distract and disrupt...thats thier MO in these situations

and will the obama people have an area set aside for protestors because IF THEY DO...you leftwing nuts are REALLY GOING To hear about it from us after all of your bloviating about that when bush spoke.........
must go

have a great day

Number 2,538,394,683,209,947,326th loss to the liberal democrats. How can a population stand to lose at everything and keep on ticking.

Although I bet AIDS, Cancer, and Syphilis are all envious of you folks but don't worry, the rest of us still consider the liberal democrat as a moron of such magnitude, that it is worth striving in medicine to extend life as long as we can to watch these terrible circumstances occur through your lives....

#10 | Posted by bnjohanson at 2008-12-18 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's funny.....you calling Obama a 'moron' after witnessing the last 8 years of your false prophet.

As for the 'losing at everything' remark, you don't seem to have been paying attention to who holds the majorities in the House & Senate and the WH too.

Obama's whole campaign was about being the president of ALL AMERICANS and he made this quite clear numerous times.

Republitards such as yourself are kicking your dogs in anger because you don't have anything to really despise him on. He's being the centrist he's always been and Rush Limpblob and his flock of tards (listeners) aren't getting the red meat they so desire.

Either way: PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!

DEAL WITH IT, BITCH!

Brilliant gesture. Yes, it riles up the left, but the fact is as this country moves forward we need everyone aboard -- Obama is not going to suddenly become a right wing evangelist. Gay rights will flower, over time, as a natural evolution... it's happening as we speak, fire breathers notwithstanding. I know it's easy for me to say patience, not being Gay, I know, but historically, and at this juncture, with a rabid, if disheartened right ready to tear down anything this supposed socialist will do, a gesture towards common ground is the best foot forward. Gay marriage will be a reality in this country within the next 5 years, and Obama will support it in one way or another. All in all, the person who acts more magnanimous towards those he disagrees with, shunning their base, ugly ways, that person will, in the end win, and win with honor and dignity and beliefs in tact.

That said, I'm really not so good at this myself as I am royally pissed at the right, and actively despise and blame them for the troubles we're in the thick of, though I wish I could be a bigger man with a bigger heart; but hey, I'm not the President of these "hopefully" United States.

It's funny, how so many on the right are claiming Obama has to be more inclusive and more like the right when all they did was slam and alienate the true center, branding it as leftist and anti-American -- just like big biz and government did to an organizing working class at the start of the 20th. The right has always been sick with ugliness. I guess... See, I just can't like 'em. But if the Pres can, and it brings about some balance, I'm all for it.

Yeah, keep up the patience...Your top will blow and we'll be there to indulge in the beauty. The clock is ticking and your HOPE isn't even in office yet....

BN-
This was your response, stating that Muslim terrorists are just like, but indeed are, "liberal democrats":

No come on, they are clearly liberal democrats that point to the verbiage of the Koran as a basis for their equally crazy platform.

You are a complete idiot.

I applaud this decision by Obama. And I applaud the pastor for agreeing to give the invocation. This nation needs to see that Obama really does wish to be an inclusive leader, - allowing all voices to be heard, - even those which the extreme left base may disagree with. It is precisely the liberal open minded and open hearted gesture I hope and expect to see from Obama throughout his presidency.

BN-
So, let me get this straight, BN. Your claim is that Muslim terrorists, al Qaeda and the Taliban are the "liberal democrats" of the Muslim world?

Obama has never cared about gays - the fact that they continue to delude themselves into thinking otherwise only ensures more "genuine blows" to their community in the future.

Joe Solomonese and People,

Quit whining. Obama ran on a platform of diversity, and diversity works both ways.

Obama also said he's known to be a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays and lesbians, and will remain so.
#11 | Posted by Corky

LOL... fierce.

Joe-
It's nice to see a advocate for gay rights on this blog.

extreme left base

Why is a demand for inclusion and the same constitutionally-protected, basic human rights considered "extreme"?

"Obama also said he's known to be a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays and lesbians, and will remain so."

How is he known for that? Can anyone name one bill he has sponsored that benefited the gay community?

Gotta love the rightnuts slamming Obama on this. He's never been anywhere near as "liberal" as the hysterical right claimed. Obama's a centrist who tilts slightly left. That's it. No big deal. Let's see what gets done over the next eight years. In any event, keep expanding the tent, kiddo. It'll drive the locksteppers krrrrrrrr-azy.

Obama has never cared about gays
#21 | Posted by JOE

Ooooooh, what a power statement.
Care to help me tune my piano?
Betcha do a mean crocodille rock.
~Sir Elton

Obama sticks it to the evanjihadists by opening the door to social justice Christians. Expect to see more of them consulted in the coming years. What can the Moosiah tempt them with?

If it splits some off from the GOP it'll be a good idea.

so whats wrong with a little FAIR AND BALANCED????

The lineup would be fair and balanced if it included someone who had just finished a successful ballot campaign to strip the religious right of, say, the right to bear arms.

THAT would be "fair and balanced".

Oh. At least two hardcore advocates for gay rights have finally come to the fore on this blog: Joe and Pinche Mao.

Nice to hear from you folks, and I'm glad that the election of Obama has given you the courage to come forward.

Rick Warren in a statement he made back in August in response to accusations by conservative Christians that he is "too soft on liberals":

The most surprising thing to me is that some leaders that I think are spiritually mature leaders value political loyalty over family loyalty. We are members of the body of Christ. Christ shed his blood for us. We're going to live in Heaven together. And yet if you don't hold the party line, all of a sudden for these people politics trumps faith.

Now the Bible says don't judge another man's servant, he will report to God on that and over and over the Bible tells us that we are to encourage one another . . . . I have seen a lot of people they use their politics as an adjective. I am not a Republican Christian. I am not a Democratic Christian. I think they're both wrong. I think Christian is what you are. I am neither religious left. I'm not a religious left because I don't believe in big government for one thing. I'm not secular left. I'm not religious right, and I'm not secular right. I happen to be in the kingdom of God. My kingdom is not of this world. And sometimes when people don't understand that they want you to be on their political bandwagon.

Still pissed how Pinche_Mao made you his beech last night huh BetelG?

Why is a demand for inclusion and the same constitutionally-protected, basic human rights considered "extreme"?
#25 | Posted by Pinche_Mao

my cognitive dissonance is kicking in here.

Gimme-
Yes, I like the way he insulted my wife and mentioned the town I lived in in the same post. I thought it was a very classy response, given that he was "cornered".

Quit you're crying you silly little twat. Nobody knows or cares about your supposed wife. Everyone probably assumes you're a faggot anyway. Furthermore, you and whatever shithole you live in are of no concern to anyone other than yourself.

What are people going to do stupid? Look for Barney, Badweek, Boyd, BetelG, and the 10 other names you've registered under?
Face it, you're good for nothing more than being used as a punching bag. A punching bag that continually whines and cries when the sweet-spot is hit.

Seriously, fuck off you bleeding little cunt.

Class abounds here, but we really should get back to the stalwart defense of gay rights promoted by Pinche and Joe.

Yes, I like the way he insulted my wife and mentioned the town I lived in

That was obvious seeing how you kept coming back for more and more and more...

The reason Prop 8 in California failed is because blacks didn't vote for it. Well, them and the Mexicans.

Brothers don't believe in no fairies. Tinkerbell better get over it. Y'all been hoodwinked.

I applaud this decision by Obama. And I applaud the pastor for agreeing to give the invocation. This nation needs to see that Obama really does wish to be an inclusive leader, - allowing all voices to be heard, - even those which the extreme left base may disagree with. It is precisely the liberal open minded and open hearted gesture I hope and expect to see from Obama throughout his presidency.

I actually agree with that. Joy Behar on the view this morning responding to something said by Elizabeth Hasselbeck about evangelicals said evangelicals didn't get him elected, gays campaigned, raised money so on and I thought, isn't this Obama doing exactly what you have been trying to convince us is a good thing? You should be happy? He is including opposing viewpoints while taking a risk of alienating the gay community who has supported him so stoutly. I'm hoping this is a sign that he wont be railroaded and controlled by leftist special interest groups. Instead of berating their guy, those who supported him shouldn't miss the opportunity to celebrate the inclusiveness of his administration! I'm more of the thought though that without their common enemy, Bush, the factions will turn on each other. Its what they all do, R & D.

Gimme-
I asked Pinche about his wife and children. For some reason the topic of his wife and family coupled with his location made him uneasy on the internet. I can't imagine why. But, when he used my location and my family against me he was "corenered" and had no choice. Perfectly understandable.

BNJOHANSON: Patience is a virtue, Cretinism and bile are not. I'm with the former as it always wins out. So, you lose. Again. And again... and again. How do I know? The Virgin Mary I saw in my bowl of Apple Jacks told me so. Get back to me in five years, we'll compare notes.

Barack Obama is coming into office during the worst economic crisis since the Great Republican Depression of 1929. Unfortunately things like gay marriage will not solve that crisis. President Obama is going to have to be leading a united nation, not a divided one if he hopes to succeed. Therefore, I think his choice of Warren is shrewd, whatever portion of the Christian right that is willing to put country first will be welcomed into a coalition against a depression. Obama is showing us that he is a pragmatist and I think we should be glad about that, even those of us who feel discriminated against by the majority will benefit if the economy can be put back on sound footing.
In other words, now is not the time to worry about anything except the economy. If Warren can help Obama create a united population we will be able to defeat the right wing obstructionists like Shelby who will gladly sacrifice our economy if it helps him destroy a union.

Great!

Great Choice in Warren!

Some folks on the right are not too happy--but they won't make a big stink about it like the gay community.

Pinche and Joe-
If you are going to be gay rights crusaders, you really should try more than one or two posts on the subject.

Obama is a calculating politician. That's an outrage! Who would've thought there ever were such a thing?

Sincerely,
People who actually fall for shit.

Gay's are OK with me. I love laughing at freaks.

Is Boyd the Sec of Ag?

BetelG-

I have advocated for gay rights for years on this blog. Whether you were too stupid to notice is your own problem.

The gay community. The religious right. The whatfuckingever. Come on, name me one group that all believes the same stuff all the time. Even the Republicans (by which I mean politicos and very active citizens), who are much better at doing lockstep than are Democrats, are hardly all the same in their thinking. THIS is what will bring this country down--the lack of real conversation and realistic assessments of belief and behavior.

Some folks on the right are not too happy--but they won't make a big stink about it like the gay community.

You must have missed Corky's Post #3 in this thread.

Joe-
I guess I've been to stupid to notice. What have you advocated for that I missed?

This is a good choice, but stand by. There are many out there that will not support it. They much more rather have Rev. Jimmy Swaggart. After all, he jogs a lot. That is a sign of good health, and, with the upcoming national health care program, he fits right in there.

The right to marry, and if not, swift action by congress to allow civil unions in all states bringing the same rights that come with marriage. As well as a change in SC jurisprudence that would treat gays as a "suspect class" in equal protection cases.

Any other dumb questions?

101-
re: Is Boyd the Sec of Ag?

#49 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-12-18 02:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are you a....

...silly little twat...faggot...stupid... bleeding little cunt...

#36 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-12-18 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

?

Now that BetelG's only contribution to the thread is over with, we can get back to the topic.

Why do any of Obama's supporters think he is somehow pro-gay? Is it just because he's a minority himself, and a democrat, so they assume he'll be liberal on those issues? Has he ever done anything for the gay community? Ever?

"Obama is showing us that he is a pragmatist and I think we should be glad about that, even those of us who feel discriminated against by the majority will benefit if the economy can be put back on sound footing"

I admire the hell out of that statement because it harkens back to the idea of taking one for the team. Sometimes it sucks and it chafes a little but you eat it & move on to the bigger picture. Equality is great but it sucks if everyone is equally broke & miserable. I wish I could be as optimistic about the selflessness of others and at times, myself, because it sure is a nice idea. I have to say BO showed balls on this one because he knew he was going to hear it big-time from the left & the GLBT crowd and he did it anyway to show other Americans solidarity too. I don't even buy into the idea that he's a politician turning on his promises. He isn't ruling on any gay issues or outlining a policy. He picked someone to be part of his inauguration. Someone who happens to represent the values of a huge amount of Americans that the president elect will be working for too.

-LOL... fierce

He flipped his wrist as he said that.

Joe-
I must say I'm impressed. Maybe you could sway Pinche and 101, and Murphy, and W is God, and REX, and .....

I'm on your side on this issue, though you have not noticed.

Has he ever done anything for the gay community?

#57 | Posted by JOE at 2008-12-18 02:26 PM | Reply

Besides marrying Ru Paul, errrr, Michele?

Joe-
You're right. Gays will miss "W" on this issue, and pray that Sarah! is elected in 2012.

"I'm on your side on this issue"

No you aren't. You were here to do the only thing you ever do - ask posters personal questions about their own views. You failed. Try another thread.

"You're right. Gays will miss "W" on this issue, and pray that Sarah! is elected in 2012."

What has Obama done for gays, or will he do for gays, that Bush or Palin didn't do or would not do?

Joe-
I find it a bit odd that you criticize a president-elect who is not even in office yet while I don't recall you being at the front of this issue for the last eight years. Maybe you were, but I don't recall direct criticism of "W" or his policies WHILE he was president (he still is president, you know)

Someone who happens to represent the values of a huge amount of Americans that the president elect will be working for too.

#58 | Posted by HATEBIGGOV

I hope he never represents your values of hatred and bigotry.

I understand that Jimmy Swaggart and Ru Paul are staging a Cage Match in protest.

What has Obama done for gays, or will he do for gays, that Bush or Palin didn't do or would not do?

#64 | Posted by JOE at 2008-12-18 02:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why don't you ask some Bush and Palin supporters? I haven't seen Murphy lately, but I believe 101, Pinche, and W is God are currently posting.

101-
What do you think of Joe's assessment regarding gay rights?

"I find it a bit odd that you criticize a president-elect who is not even in office yet while I don't recall you being at the front of this issue for the last eight years."

Again - the fact that you have been too stupid to notice something doesn't mean it didn't happen continuously, for years. Also, my criticism in this thread is directed more at Obama's supporters than at him. They seem to be convinced that he is some sort of gay rights supporter. My question is - what has he ever done for gays?

Sorry. I didn't phrase that so that 101 could understand.

101-
As a Republican voter, what do you think of "faggots"?

Cynthia McKinney, Republican

Joe-
Well, maybe 101 has left the blog. He called me a "faggot" just an hour or so ago, so I thought he might have some strong views on the subject.

Oh. There he is.

101-
You voted for Bush, and voted Republican in this election. What's your opinion on "faggots"?

I think I'm actually feeling BO on this one. Not even too much thinking about what a shrewd political move it was & how he's calculating and throwing a bone to the right to shut us up for awhile even though I know those things must be true! WTF! Must be the holidays....

Merry Christmas!

BetelG settle this like the man you claim to be and meet Pinche_Mao halfway between Lubbock and Boerne to settle this. I'm betting he won't even need to dip into his rohypnol stash to give you want you really want.

"What has Obama done for gays, or will he do for gays, that Bush or Palin didn't do or would not do?"

I think that the situation in America is too dire to even bother worrying about gay issues right now. When we are all unemployed and hungry it won't matter that much. There will be obstructionists in the Senate after the inauguration, any good will Obama can build among those who opposed him in the election might tip the scales of public opinion when crunch time comes on bills important for real economic recovery.

I hope he never represents your values of hatred and bigotry.

You're impossible. I give credit where credit is due unlike you. Just how old were you when you became so rigid, unyielding, judgemental, uncomprimising, self-riteous & holier-than-thou? I'd like to know so I can look out for it in myself. If my character is unbecoming to someone like you I'll take that as a positive. You have my pity along with my contempt.

Gimme-
I have a better idea. When you feel "cornered" on a blog, how about not going after someones family and posting their location? How about just arguing about the shit we argue about and not going personal and creepy?

How 'bout that?

I think that the situation in America is too dire to even bother worrying about gay issues right now.

We can't take care of both at once?

"I think that the situation in America is too dire to even bother worrying about gay issues right now."

What a cop-out.

hatebiggov with every post you display the fact that you are only capable of regurgitating rightwing propaganda that Hannity feeds you. don't worry though soon you will be exposed and quit this blog in defeat.

Quit you're crying you silly little twat. Nobody knows or cares about your supposed wife. Everyone probably assumes you're a faggot anyway. Furthermore, you and whatever shithole you live in are of no concern to anyone other than yourself.

What are people going to do stupid? Look for Barney, Badweek, Boyd, BetelG, and the 10 other names you've registered under?
Face it, you're good for nothing more than being used as a punching bag. A punching bag that continually whines and cries when the sweet-spot is hit.

Seriously, fuck off you bleeding little cunt.

#36 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-12-18 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

.....and here we see 101's Essay submission for Poet Laureate.

"hatebiggov with every post you display the fact that you are only capable of regurgitating rightwing propaganda that Hannity feeds you. don't worry though soon you will be exposed and quit this blog in defeat"

For someone who hates Hannity you seem to know far more about him than I do.
Just so you know, I'm no quitter but I look forward to the attempted exposure. Thanks for the warning. I'll try very, very hard to get to sleep tonight.

"We can't take care of both at once?"

Without a 60 vote majority in the Senate we need the cooperation of some Republican Senators. The religious community generally votes for Republicans so if we want their support on economics bills we are going to have to leave social issues pretty much alone. Hey, during WWII black folks fought with white America even though we even discriminated against them while they did. They recognized the common threat and our economic situation, I think, is another common threat which will require sacrifice to defeat. When and if we do fix the economy we can always try to change things like gay marriage, etc.
Obama is going to build a huge popular force of support which will have great power but he will need supporters from many different backgrounds, religions, etc. to do it.
I think he will need to identify who and what our real "enemies" are and focus all working Americans on the job of defeating those "enemies." For too long, we have let our "enemies" pander to the religious right and divide the working class.

Rick Warren has done more to relieve human suffering all over the world through his private and public groups than any latte-slurping, spum-guzzling, old woman taunting homo in San Fransciso EVER has. So complain all you want, every time the skin flutist start crying about something like this, the more people turn against them

"What a cop-out."

Sorry but my concern for my kids and grandkids welfare supercedes my own selfish desire for gay marriage. When the time is right that right will come but in the mean time we need to rebuild the country and secure a future for ourselves and our kids. That will take unity and gay issues create disunity. Pragmatism should be our only guide.

so in other words, lets revisit gay rights in a decade or so?

Danni, this more about you than me or Joe. I hope that we won't have to wait that long for you to be treated with the respect that you have every right to expect in this day and age.

-done more to relieve human suffering all over the world through his private and public groups

Is the HillWilliam talking about Warren or Bubba? Hard to tell.

How 'bout that?

#79 | Posted by BetelG

How 'bout you stop running off at the mouth in response to such posts thus encouraging them? Grow a pair will ya?

HAGBARD I done some thinking on the topic lately and after Amendment 8 in California won, after Amendment 2 in Florida won, I realize that if we focus on those issues the Republicans win every time.
I think if we, instead, confront the REAL Republican issues....WAGES and JOBS, HEALTHCARE, etc. we will raise incomes and social rights will follow. If you look around the world the most affluent societies are also some of the most liberal. Poverty generally creates prejudice, end poverty...end prejudice. I think Obama thinks something like that and is thus trying to build a coalition based on economics rather than social issues.

Did you know in New York, A mass grave was discovered a few years back of African Slaves that their backs had broken from being forced to carry loads too heavy for them..Now I want some Homo to tell me how the fact that he can't skip down the aisle with his "significant other" compares to that type of abuse. Every time you compare the fact that to have another guys meat pipe up your behind is the same as the struggle of Black Americans all you do is piss people off. And I am still waiting for the names of the Stalags Homos are shipped off to. Stop whining and stop putting your deviant sexuality out there as some sort of "unique" quality that entitles you to "special victims" status

Gimme-
Unfortunately, "them" is you, although it seems your "pair" is now uncomfortable with that.

"that entitles you to "special victims" status"

special?!?

Can you name a single right gay couples want which my wife and I didn't get the moment we said "I do"...?

Hillbillyjihad-
re: Now I want some Homo to tell me how the fact that he can't skip down the aisle with his "significant other" compares to that type of abuse. Every time you compare the fact that to have another guys meat pipe up your behind is the same as the struggle of Black Americans all you do is piss people off.

If you would name the poster who equated current gay rights struggles with slavery, I'd be glad to set them straight, so to speak.

Otherwise, it seems as if you just wanted to rant about "another guys meat pipe up your behind", apropos of nothing.

Why is that?

Actually "Texas' Claim To Shame" Betel you make it so much fun to do that I pulled a nut laughing at you last night.

Danni, the fact that you might not be victorious does not mean that you cannot introduce a bill. Likewise, prior to the economic crisis, Obama did nothing in Illinois that would indicate a favorable stance toward gays. Just admit that he only pays lip service to the group and that you, as a gay person, have no reason to vote for him on that particular issue.

"Now I want some Homo to tell me how the fact that he can't skip down the aisle with his "significant other" compares to that type of abuse."

Why would it have to be equal oppression???
Your logic is flawed.

Be that as it may, I think folks here and around the country are greatly underestimating the economic crisis and not realizing that gay marriage will be a forgotten issue once the full brunt of the crisis hits...assuming we can't stop it which I think Obama will try and hopefully succeed in doing.
To do it will require post-9-11 like unity and social issues will divide and produce nothing except failure.

The fact that any gay person would say "let's wait until everything else settles down before we ask for civil rights again" blows my mind. Hopefully Danni is a troll.

There are no "rights" that come with marriage, name right that comes with marriage?

every time you here Homo's crying about prop 8 they are so 'Sad" that blacks voted against it, they say "it would seem they would understand"...are you kidding? you compare lynchings to not being able to collect some benefit from an insurance company..And that is their right to decide who they want to pay...if you don't like it start the first HOMO national insuarnce company

Gimme-
re: I pulled a nut laughing at you last night.

Yeah. Look, if you are going to "laugh" at me again, please don't tell me about it.

"Just admit that he only pays lip service to the group and that you, as a gay person, have no reason to vote for him on that particular issue."

I believe he does care about that issue, but I also think he recognizes the problems heading our way and is more concerned about that right now. If he were to come out big on gay rights he would lose the support of millions at a time when it would be irresponsible to do so. When John Kennedy decided to go after civil rights for black people he recognized he would lose the south for fifty years. Well black people got their rights but Republicans got to rule the nation for much of those 50 years and now we see the results of that. I'm glad black people got their rights but we can't afford another fifty years of Republican rule right now.

Hillbillyjihad-
re: you compare lynchings to not being able to collect some benefit from an insurance company.

Who is "you"?

Do you understand, asshole?

WHO IS COMPARING lynchings to not being able to collect some benefit from an insurance company

?????

Who?

(You seem to be the only one doing that)

"Hopefully Danni is a troll."

Tell me Joe, did FDR integrate the armed force during WWII or did Truman do it after the war??
Why do you think that is???
Don't underestimate the economic crisis we face.
We need a unified country right now even if gay rights have to wait. Black people accepted that and did their duty in WWII, we can too.
I have an 11 year old grandson, I care more about his future than about any right I may not have presently. Perhaps it will be his generation that gives it to me in appreciation for the willingness to put his generation first now.

"There are no "rights" that come with marriage, name right that comes with marriage? "

You're an idiot.

Legally, marriage is all about rights. It's a contract conferring superseding rights to another person.

A married couple has the right to give gifts to each other without limit; not so for a gay couple. A spouse automatically has the right to the other's pension, or 401(k); not so for a gay couple. A married couple can refuse to testify against one another, as they have that right; but not so for a gay couple. And a surviving spouse has the right to the deceased person's Social Security bump up; not so for a gay couple.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. There are over 1,000 rights, privileges, and protections afforded by marriage.

So I'll ask again: can you name one right a gay couple wants which my wife and I didn't get the moment we said "I do"...?

Danni, I don't disagree that the economy and the war are the primary issues of the day, but my rights are diminished until your rights are protected. This is for all Americans.

"There are no "rights" that come with marriage, name right that comes with marriage?"

The right to a share of your spouse's property if they die without a will.

The right to make emergency medical decisions for your spouse.

The right to file a wrongful death claim.

The right to file a joint tax return.

Medical leave to take care of your sick spouse.

Black people accepted that and did their duty in WWII, we can too.
#104 | Posted by danni

The only disagreement I have with you here is that the black civil rights movement didn't mature until after WWII.

"We need a unified country right now even if gay rights have to wait."

You're entitled to your opinion. Just don't pretend Obama would be doing anything if the economy was fine right now - he's had years to demonstrate a favorable position on gay issues and has done absolutely zero.

"I believe he does care about that issue"

Why?

"A married couple has the right to give gifts to each other without limit; not so for a gay couple. A spouse automatically has the right to the other's pension, or 401(k); not so for a gay couple. A married couple can refuse to testify against one another, as they have that right; but not so for a gay couple. And a surviving spouse has the right to the deceased person's Social Security bump up; not so for a gay couple"

Those are not rights!!! those are benefits offered if you meet the criteria...and if they come from a private company..Like a 401(K)...you have no right to it..NON of those things except the right NOt to testify against your spouse is a right? they are benefits...and they are not marriage exclusive, you have to lobby the person giving them, and again, if it is a private company..they don't have too..Name me a right that gays do not have.. a real right, like the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to bear arms...you cannot,
The right to a share of your spouse's property if they die without a will.

The right to make emergency medical decisions for your spouse.

The right to file a wrongful death claim.

The right to file a joint tax return.

Medical leave to take care of your sick spouse.

again, none of these are right, these are benefits afforded a married man and a woman...Lobby for them

BetelG sometimes you're just begging to be the DR's premier Bazooka Joe punching bag.

"Why?"

He's said so on many occasions.
What is he supposed to do? Pretend Proposition 8 didn't just get more than fifty percent of the votes in California and push ahead on an agenda which would alienate a huge portion of the electorate right when he will need their support in a very big way???
Prioritize!
Obama is USING Rick Warren not the other way around.
Gay people should consider that without jobs, homes, etc. gay marriage is a not our biggest need.
I believe in dealing with the REALITY of the situation, gay marriage is not something within the power of President Obama to accomplish, all it would do is divide Congress and the nation were he to push for it now. He needs to reinforce the message he said on election night, he will be the president of those who opposed him in the election too.

again, none of these are right, these are benefits afforded a married man and a woman...Lobby for them

Or go straight it ain't that hard.

What did Obama do for gays back when we were prosperous in the 90's? You know, before this "crisis" you keep using to spin the fact that Obama could give a flying fuck less about gheys.

"Medical leave to take care of your sick spouse."

Perfect example. The Republicans and Corporate America would love nothing better than to take away ALL medical leave. Most of us can't afford unpaid medical leave anyway. Many of us don't have ANY health insurance to share with a spouse were we able to have one. Why are we concerning ourselves so much about benefits we don't even have????

"Why?"

"Because he said so..."

Holy fucking shit, that's the most naive thing I've read here. What a fucking lemming.

"Those are not rights!!! those are benefits "

The RIGHT to refuse to testify against your spouse isn't a right, but a benefit?!? Why are you making up definitions?

"Like a 401(K)...you have no right to it.."

You're full of shit. Try keeping your 401(k) from your spouse without her signing a waiver, and see what happens.

"if it is a private company..they don't have (to).."

You could not be more wrong.

"again, none of these are (rights)"

It's always easier to spot the dumbasses when they volunteer themselves.

"Why (do you think he cares about gays)?"

"He's said so"

My point exactly. Talk is cheap. John McCain could say that he cares about gays - he has done just as much for them as Obama has. Nothing. Would you believe him?

What did Obama do for gays back when we were prosperous in the 90's? You know, before this "crisis" you keep using to spin the fact that Obama could give a flying fuck less about gheys.

#115 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-12-18 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Quit you're crying you silly little twat. Nobody knows or cares about your supposed wife. Everyone probably assumes you're a faggot anyway.... Seriously, fuck off you bleeding little cunt.

#36 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-12-18 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're quite the humanitarian, 101.

And you're exactly how I described you in post #36 Boyd.

What was the REAL change that black people got from the sixties??? Was it integration or was if equality in JOBS????
Economic issues trump social issues.
When economic times are good social causes make progress, when economic times are bad they don't.
I voted for Obama because he said he would help lead the middle class back to prosperity not because of his position on gay rights.

"When economic times are good social causes make progress, when economic times are bad they don't"

And again - if Obama gave a damn about gay rights, where was he in the 90's when the economy was fine?

BarneyWeek,
Did you like my post from yesterday?
Here it is, in case you missed it cupcake...

The "I've had the most handles award" goes to BetelG's wifes mid-section and rastaninja.

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-12-17 09:49 AM | Reply

Or even in the early 2000's?

101-
Would you please make up your mind? Am I a "faggot", or do you wish to insult my wife?

Jesus christ. One thing's for sure, you're a fucking loser.

Would you please make up your mind? Am I a "faggot", or do you wish to insult my wife?

#126 | Posted by BetelG

Those two approaches don't necessarily have to be mutually exlusive.

101-
Here's a game for you: Can you cite a post of yours where you said something substantive and didn't just impotently and virtually rail insults at your mother and first love?

Sincerely,
Faggot, bleeding little cunt, twat

Hagbard-
I'm quite sure 101 is aware of that, LOL.

Both could be true. Afterall, Danni was married to a man once.
Either way, I could care less. I just get a kick out of thin skinned fools like you getting upset over things you can't control.

And again - if Obama gave a damn about gay rights, where was he in the 90's when the economy was fine?

#123 | Posted by JOE at 2008-12-18 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you know what year it is, and what party has been in charge for the last decade, and who was president? (I'm just asking)

101-
re: I just get a kick out of thin skinned fools like you getting upset over things you can't control.

I know that you can't control who you are, but you can certainly realize that your "faggot/bleeding cunt" repertoire is a dead giveaway.

101-
It's never too late.

You seem to really want somebody to talk to. Perhaps your wife will chat you up when she doesn't have a mouthful?

"Do you know what year it is, and what party has been in charge for the last decade, and who was president? (I'm just asking)"

Are you aware that it is possible to introduce bills when your party is not in power? Are you also aware that Democrats controlled the Illinois state senate the entire time Obama was a member? Just asking.

It's really none of my business, 101. I'm sorry to bring it up. You have to make your own peace, but your violent sexual references seem to be your only mode of expression, and it's a bit disturbing.

May this holiday season give you the courage to examine your hatred of women, "bleeding cunts" and "faggots".

"Jesus christ. One thing's for sure, you're a fucking loser.

#127 | Posted by JOE "

Spoken by a guy whose party's accomplishments amounted to winning a water district seat in some bumpkinsville by running a Losertarian. He won a landslide. Of course he was unopposed.

"Spoken by a guy whose party's blah blah blah blah blah"

I was talking about him - not his political party. Learn the difference.

Joe-
Sure. You are a one issue voter. In light of this, who'd you support in 2008 (or 2004, or 2000), and what was their platform?

Oh, a libertarian who is disappointed that the vote he threw away didn't result in a gay man being elected president.

Bummer.

"You are a one issue voter."

Says who?

"I was talking about him - not his political party. Learn the difference.

#139 | Posted by joe "

You're a loser anyway you slice it, Losertarian Joe.

As much as you wish this thread was about myself, 101 and Mao, the thread is actually about Barack Obama. Are you capable of discussing his views and actions without constantly talking about people's personal lives?

As much as Null Set wishes he could kill this thread with his irrelevant comments, BetelG already did. Find another one, idiot.

Another disaffected Republican who chose to not support and caucus and lobby the one viable party most likely to support his life in return on a national level?

I have little sympathy for you complaints, Joe.

Well, who'd you vote for, Joe? What party did you participate in and lobby for?

I've supported Libertarians for ten years. Not that it has any relevance whatsoever to this thread.

Who I vote for has no bearing on the fact that Obama doesn't care about gay rights. Come back when you figure that out, moron.

I've supported Losertarians for ten years. Not that it has any relevance whatsoever to this thread.

#148 | Posted by JOE

And all I got in return was a lousy water district seat!

What have democrats done for you lately, moron?

Joe-
It has a strong bearing on the fact that you neglected the one party that had the greatest hope for success on this issue, and now swoop in to carp that they don't represent your concerns.

Boyd likes Obama because Obama is ambiguously colored, and ambiguously ghey, just like BetelG.
With that in mind, how long until BarneyWeekBoydBetelG changes his handle to B Husssien? Will he give us another "I'm never comming back" farewell, and another "I'm new here" introduction?

"It has a strong bearing on the fact that you neglected the one party that had the greatest hope for success on this issue, and now swoop in to carp that they don't represent your concerns."

Since I don't vote based on one issue but instead for the best candidate overall, your post is stupid. Even if I were a one-issue voter, why would I vote for Obama if gay rights were my one issue? He has come out and said he is against their marrying and has never done anything to support their rights.

"the fact that Obama doesn't care about gay rights"

Gays---and the facts---seem to disagree:

Barack Obama supported gay rights during his Illinois Senate tenure. He sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Barack Obama co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes laws to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes it should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Barack Obama believes we need to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Barack Obama believes gays and lesbians should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexuals.

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

What have democrats done for you lately, moron?

#151 | Posted by JOE at 2008-12-18 04:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Considering that Republicans have dominated national level politics for a couple of decades and got the trifecta for most of this century, not much.

What have Libertarians done for you lately, aside from that smug superior mantle you wear like a medal?

"What have Libertarians done for you lately"

Considering that "wahh wahh, Republicans have been in power" is your excuse for non-action by Democrats, that seems like an awfully stupid question.

Joe-
re: Since I don't vote based on one issue but instead for the best candidate overall

And who was that in the presidential election in 2008?

(surely you are not ashamed to say)

Danforth-

I stand corrected on the three pieces in your post that mention an actual sponsorship or vote. The rest talks about what he "believes" or "says" which doesnt amount to anything.

BetelG-

Blow it out your ass. I'm here to talk about the topic of the thread - not myself. I supported Bob Barr in 2008 and I'd do it again given the other choices. Now fuck off.

"I stand corrected on the three pieces in your post that mention an actual sponsorship or vote. "

So you were wrong, repeatedly.

Danforth-

I stand corrected on the three pieces in your post that mention an actual sponsorship or vote. The rest talks about what he "believes" or "says" which doesnt amount to anything.

#159 | Posted by JOE at 2008-12-18 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Blow it out your ass. I'm here to talk about the topic of the thread - not myself. I supported Bob Barr in 2008 and I'd do it again given the other choices. Now fuck off.

#160 | Posted by JOE The Mouth

All right! Now that's the red-faced-neck-veins-bulging-
out-angry-lil-Joe we all know to be the "real" Joe.

Joe-
I missed Bob Barr's legislation or rhetoric that you found so appealing on this issue.

You're right, Danforth, I was wrong. Which is why I said "I stand corrected." Does that make sense to you?

BetelG-

You must have also missed where I told you to fuck off. Fuck off.

My apologies, Joe. All you were asking for was information, and I turned it into a petty battle. Thanks for providing the actual facts, Danforth.

"You're right, Danforth, I was wrong."

"The rest talks about what he "believes" or "says" which doesnt amount to anything."

Why not, since he now seemingly has a track record of support to back up "what he believes or says"?

Does that make sense to you?

"You must have also missed where I told you to fuck off. Fuck off.

#166 | Posted by JOE "

Oh chill out, Joe. It would be a tragedy...not...if you had a heart attack at your tender age.

"Why not, since he now seemingly has a track record of support to back up "what he believes or says"?

Because the job of a legislator is to do things, not say things. If I stood outside the capitol in Springfield IL and talked about what I support for 9 hours a day, nobody would care. If I went inside and did something, people would care. Does that make sense to you?

Why not, since he now seemingly has a track record of support to back up "what he believes or says"?

Does that make sense to you?

#168 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-12-18 05:01 PM | Reply

Why yes, a track record of 3 things in his whole career...

Now I see why Danni and the rest of the lemmings believe him "because he said so".

- I supported Bob Barr in 2008

Now we know why....

"Why yes, a track record of 3 things in his whole career..."

Which would therefore be more than any prior nominee in history, wouldn't it?

Which would therefore be more than any prior nominee in history, wouldn't it?

#173 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-12-18 05:07 PM | Reply

Don't ask me. I'd find it hard to believe that Bush or Clinton were for discrimination in the workplace.

Regardless, Obama and Bush agree, gays shouldn't get married.

"Which would therefore be more than any prior nominee in history, wouldn't it?"

Oops. Facts are not allowed here, at least by losertarian idealogues.

danforth-
re: "Which would therefore be more than any prior nominee in history, wouldn't it?"

I think you would have to ask our leading expert on the rights of "faggots" and "bleeding cunts" - our own 101 - for an answer to that.

If that's not possible, one should check the legislative history and rhetoric of Bob "I'm almost, like, gay" Barr.

"Regardless, Obama and Bush agree, gays shouldn't get married."

On that one aspect of it, yes, but don't kid yourself...only one presided over Republicans trying to get a constitutional amendment passed making gays permanent second-class citizens.

This is a weird moment. 101 and Joe are ostensibly on the same side of the whole "faggot" thing that "bleeding cunt" liberals harp on.

Talk is cheap. -- #119 | Posted by JOE

Yep. For all the talk, Sarah Palin has a record of supporting gay rights; Obama does not.

Phoenix-
Can you read, or just post?

Phoenix-
Seriously. Do you have a one-way computer that only allows you to post, but the receiver is dead or something?

"Obama does not."

See #155.

"Sarah Palin has a record of supporting gay rights"

In an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network, the Alaska governor said she had voted in 1998 for a state amendment banning same sex marriage and hoped to see a federal ban on such unions.

"I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that's where we would go. I don't support gay marriage," Palin said. She said she believed traditional marriage is the foundation for strong families.

Can you read, or just post? -- #180 | Posted by BetelG

Sorry; skimming in a hurry, and it appears that I missed posts #62, 63 and 67 of 178.

Why have you been sidetracked by trivia when you already won the argument?

I mean, you gotta love a politician whose hair reminds you of Audrey Hepburn.

I recommend Phoenix's link to any forensic anthropologist of mania:

Why have you been sidetracked by trivia when you already won the argument?

#184 | Posted by Phoenix at 2008-12-18 05:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Good point.

See ya when you're not being trivial and obsolete.

"I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that's where we would go. I don't support gay marriage," Palin said. She said she believed traditional marriage is the foundation for strong families.

Phoenix-
So, what was up with what you posted? I visited the site, and I didn't see what you claimed was there.

Phoenix-
I saw this statement, without link:

And we gay Republicans have something to cheer in her record. Shortly after taking office, she vetoed legislation that would have prevented the state from providing benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees.

That seems to contradict Palin's stated position, and as there was no link, I don't know what to think of it. She does have "Audrey Hepburn" hair, though.

BetelG,

That phrase IS on that website. As is this explanation, later:

...she didn't do this willingly. She did this because she had no choice. The State Supreme Court had already ruled the law unconstitutional. She personally went on record as supporting the denial of health and hospital benefits to Gay couples but argued she had no choice in the matter especially after her AG chimed in.

Some "support".

Palin does not support gay rights at all.

She chose to veto a law because she was informed that the law was unconstitutional.

She fully supports efforts to amend the Alaska constitution to make the vetoed law constitutional.

Talk.

Action.

Not the same thing.

"Now I see why Danni and the rest of the lemmings believe him "because he said so"."

This thread illustrates the tactic that right wing politicians and pundits use all the time. Divide and conquer, unfortunately for them though, most of America is done playing that game. Most of us get it that we are facing huge problems and thus will not allow ourselves to be divided over issues we may disagree about but which are not critical to our survival or prosperity as a nation. 101 and others here seem to be disappointed that I am not upset that Obama chose Warren to speak because whether they realize it or not it indicates that real unity can be created which will be strong enough to defeat conservative economic principles which have enriched the few while leaving the vast majority worse off. Watch, they will find a way of bringing abortion issues into this next. They don't give a rat's ass about gay marriage or abortion, they care about continuing Reaganomics which has benefited them personally or which they think has benefited them personally. I just don't bother with those discussions because I believe gay marriage will get here when the time is right and really arguing about it won't make it happen one day sooner. Most likely gay people will have to wait for a lot of old farts to die. They will eventually and things will change for gay people....eventually.

Lemme see now...are we changing the hope or hoping for the change? LOL

Most of us get it that we are facing huge problems and thus will not allow ourselves to be divided over issues we may disagree about but which are not critical to our survival or prosperity as a nation.-- #192 Danni

Sorry, Danni; we *are* divided. I put basic rights ahead of prosperity.

I want to believe that Danforth et. al. are right about Obama on gay rights. It seems to me, though, that anyone who voted for him based on issues rather than idolatry should be sending the message that talk is not enough.

Thanks Gal--

FF for Corky #2 post
----------

And as there are folks on the right and left that are upset about Warren doing the Invocation --it must be a good move. (This works well in mediations too).

Let's keep folks divided--;o)

I think it is fine for Obama to pick Warren and think it was good for Warren to accept.

I am just glad it isn't Rev. Wright.

And Obama is totally in the bag for gay marriage and for gays do tell and do ask in the military.

Obama is too shrewd and too aware not to know how deeply wounding and insulting his choice of Rick Warren to give a blessing at his inauguration is to the gay community. It's like losing Prop 8 all over again. We have to assume that this decision is as intentional and as calculated as the Iraqi journalist's who threw his shoes at Bush.

Warren is an activist bigot, who opposes both gay and women's rights. By this choice, Obama joins a long line of ordinary politicians who court the gay vote only to abandon them to a post-election calculus that this is a community that matters less than others in the end.

Shame on you, Barack Obama. You're looking more and more like just another hack from Chicago. If you're all about inclusion of every conceivable perspective (which invites the question of what you stand for), why not have the KKK march in your inaugural parade? You just laid a big turd in your own punchbowl.

Yeah.

Its all about you, queen.

Bad call by Barack.

Be Well.

Interesting how the rightoids work themselves into a faux lather over this.

Get ready, punks, because you flat-footed oafs are going to have to float like butterflies and sting like bees to play with Obama for the next 8 years.

"Shame on you Barrack Obama...."

Yadayadayada. You think Warren hates you and therefore you hate Warren. To the extent that's where you're comming from, we don't need you. The adults will rent you an island while we fix things here.

... float like butterflies and sting like bees ...

It worked for Ali.

"You're lloking more and more like a hack form Chicago...."

And this is all it took for you? Tell me, how many cocoanut palms you want on your island?

Jeez, hate to tell you, but the next four years will be tough. We're going to have to get along somehow.

Besides and just imagine, you could have been "deeply wounded" and also had a Republican president.

"It worked for Ali."

And how.
"A beeyootiful thing" as Al Pacino might say.

"It worked for Ali."

Also requires class, and Karl Rove, et. al., tore away whatever amount of that quality the Obamaphiles might've had in their armory.

Suck it up, GOPiggies.

This really is disingenuous left-wing bullshit.

If Warren is such a "bigot", where was this hand-wringing back when Obama participated in Warren's forum with McCain back in the summer?

The Homosexual and its advocates need to come to terms with the fact that an awful lot of folks are fairly disgusted by homosexual behavior and don't want some artificial notion of its "normalcy" forced down their throats and into their culture.

They doesn't make them "bigots".

Calling them such---and acting like despicable fucking brown-shirt fascists towards Mormons because of an election disappointment isn't going to score them many points.

The Homosexual and its advocates need to come to terms with the fact that an awful lot of folks are fairly disgusted by homosexual behavior and don't want some artificial notion of its "normalcy" forced down their throats and into their culture.

They doesn't make them "bigots".

~Pinched Loaf

The amoral religous bigots and their fascist fucktard advocates like Pinchy need to come to terms with the fact that a lot of folk are disgusted by religious fanaticism preaching immorality and inequality and don't want the absurd notion that such hate is normal or desirable within a stable progressive society to be forced down their throats and into the evolving memestream.

The only brown shirt Spud sees around here is you, Mao.

Referring to gays as "it"?

religious fanaticism

Except being opposed to the fabrication of an entirely new victim class defined solely by their particular sexual perversion isn't "religious fanaticism".

Nor does it have much to do with "preaching immorality and inequality".

See Spud, you really need to make an effort to learn and internalize the concept that one can be tolerant of the existence of the Homosexual without accepting its advocates' silly demand that the behavior should be enshrined within our cultural norms.

Your emotional (rather than intellectual) approach to the matter has heretofore precluded you from resolving the paradox presented above.

I'm glad I could help out.

California is arguable the most progressive state in the nation, and its been able to figure it out, as well.

Its time for mouthbreathers like yourself to get with the program instead of employing brownshirt tactics against Mormons.

Quit trying to frame this as some noble civil rights "struggle" for "equality".

Its not.

Quit trying to frame this as some noble civil rights "struggle" for "equality".

Its not.

#207 | Posted by Pinche_Mao

Funny that you seem to know so much more than actual Civil Rights leaders who say that it IS.

Coretta Scott King saw it that way, sanantoniorogue.

But what did she know, eh? let's defer to mr. modesty and his vast civil rights knowledge.

So do John Lewis and Julian Bond, for a couple of more examples.

But Pinche says no, so....

Shirley Chisholm and Dolores Huerta were a couple more.

Letting HIM give a speech at the inauguration?

Is he really that deeply deluded in his Messianic Complex that he thinks this sort of thing is "reaching across the aisle"? Why not just invite David Duke to speak there also, President Lunatic?

While I don't agree with several of Warren's positions he's the only major voice in the evangelical community who's working with AIDS organizations and others, a first for white evangelicals. Obama's time as a community organizer brought him experience in involving churches at the community level to add additional resources where they're needed.

I saw an interview with Warren a couple of years ago where he stated that part of being a Christian is helping those he doesn't agree with. I thought it was a pretty brave stance for him to take. For the pastor of an evangelical megachurch to offer a hand to AIDS patients is a good step in the right direction and a good example other white evangelicals could learn from.

I'm a big Obama supporter who's had issues with the evangelical community's single minded focus on abortion and gay marriage. It's about time someone from that community placed the emphasis on doing actual Christian things ... like helping AIDS patients, the poor, etc. and not limiting 'outreach' to villages in Africa. Long overdue.

Obama said he wanted to try to bring people together. Warren, with the exception of abortion and gay marriage, is the closest thing America has to someone encouraging his church to work with people HE doesn't agree with.

Warren takes a small salary and lives modestly when he could be raking it in. He seems to be in the ministry for the right reasons. 100% of his book proceeds go to various charities - many of which support causes he's against ideologically, but feels need a hand.

OK, continue the Obama bashing.

"President lunatic...."

A doctor isn't for healthy people, but for the sick.

Since many groups define themselves largely in terms of being hated by others, because they can reinforce the division by hating back, not-hating them is the best way to make them go away.

Or better yet, not-hating them is the best way to make them one of you. And if there were any chance at all David Duke would repent because he was allowed to give an invocation, then I say have on.

"Or better yet, not-hating them is the best way to make them one of you."

Too mucho mas nuance. Me no can 'stand.
~Punchy Mo

religious fanaticism

Except being opposed to the fabrication of an entirely new victim class defined solely by their particular sexual perversion isn't "religious fanaticism".

Nor does it have much to do with "preaching immorality and inequality".

See Spud, you really need to make an effort to learn and internalize the concept that one can be tolerant of the existence of the Homosexual without accepting its advocates' silly demand that the behavior should be enshrined within our cultural norms.

Your emotional (rather than intellectual) approach to the matter has heretofore precluded you from resolving the paradox presented above.

I'm glad I could help out.

California is arguable the most progressive state in the nation, and its been able to figure it out, as well.

Its time for mouthbreathers like yourself to get with the program instead of employing brownshirt tactics against Mormons.

Quit trying to frame this as some noble civil rights "struggle" for "equality".

Its not.

#207 | Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-12-18 09:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually, I think the struggle is more about a deeply rooted need for validation by society to assuage the innate guilt in the conscience over sexual perversion and an attendant immoral life style.

"Actually, I think the struggle is more about a deeply rooted need for validation by society to assuage the innate guilt in the conscience over sexual perversion and an attendant immoral life style."

More likely that you're need to punish gays by depriving us of certain rights is to assuage your own guilt about the bigotry you have expressed your entire life. If you now were to stop hating you would have to examine your conscience about why you allowed yourself to hate for so long.
Don't be afraid, the gay community will forgive you, you will have to forgive yourself though before your guilt will disappear.

after a couple of days after this we might all be making too much of it.
will it really make a difference?
I dont know of anyone I know who would somehow think that obama is more to the center because of this
at the BEST they think he is doing it because it might help politically, not having a thing to do with believing anything that warren believes.

AND aGAIN....I cant wait for the day that obama has a speech and the crowd is okayed or whatever you leftys say about bushor that protestors are all put in one area

and DONT TELL ME he wont have protesters...he already has had them....rememeber all the blacks who started yelling at him at that one place???

I just dont think its that big of a deal

I'm laughing here. Wright wasn't a problem for democrats even when he was yelling "God damn America." Obama throws Wright under the bus. Now Obama has an open position and asks Warren to preside over the invocation and all hell breaks loose.

Lonnie

lonnie

of course you are laughing. and the obama cultists here just cant see the irony

"and the obama cultists here just cant see the irony"

Obama cultists sounds so ridiculous coming from someone still calling themself BushLover.
You couldn't see the flaws in your deity's character nor even take responsibility for the results of his presidency yet you call Obama supporters cultists.....laughable.

oh come on sweety

is that the BEST youve got

start reading northguy or doc for some help on your slams........

I have been on record as bush not being a real conservative when it comes to spending

when libs here and the media start taking barry to task like they have bush...then I will consider what you are saying

until then

its margarita time in texas...special christmas party edition.

"when libs here and the media start taking barry to task like they have bush...then I will consider what you are saying"

Do you mind if I wait until he is actually president??

Marguerita time in Texas??? You're starting early aren't you??

"Actually, I think the struggle is more about a deeply rooted need for validation by society to assuage the innate guilt in the conscience over sexual perversion and an attendant immoral life style."

More likely that you're need to punish gays by depriving us of certain rights is to assuage your own guilt about the bigotry you have expressed your entire life. If you now were to stop hating you would have to examine your conscience about why you allowed yourself to hate for so long.
Don't be afraid, the gay community will forgive you, you will have to forgive yourself though before your guilt will disappear.

#218 | Posted by danni at 2008-12-19 11:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hate = Any opinion or perspective that doesn't agree with Danni's?

You don't know me. You don't know my life. How arrogant of you to presume to.

While I personally find homosexual behavior morally repugnant, I don't actually hate homosexuals. I do not need forgiveness from the gay community, as I have not persecuted or offended it.

The Bible condemns homosexuality as sexual sin (as well as any sex outside marriage, bestiality, etc.).

I believe the Bible.

I won't be apostasizing for you or anyone els...here or elsewhere.

"I believe the Bible."

Only the parts you want.

Ever had a shrimp cocktail, a poly-cotton shirt, or a haircut?

"I believe the Bible."

Only the parts you want.

Ever had a shrimp cocktail, a poly-cotton shirt, or a haircut?

#226 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-12-19 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

There you go again...talking into your hat. Your three examples from the Law of the Covenant with Israel do not apply today. That covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant in Christ, which retains the moral law, not as the basis for justification before God (that is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone) but as a guide for how the believer should live in Christ.

You need to read the whole book.

"That covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant in Christ"

And where in the New Covenant of Christ does Jesus condemn homosexuality?

"That covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant in Christ"

And where in the New Covenant of Christ does Jesus condemn homosexuality?

#228 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-12-19 03:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's the matter? Can't come up with a new deflection? The New Covenant in Christ encompasses all genuine believers effectually called by God. They are the true church made up of all whom God calls. The church is built upon the apostles and prophets, Christ being the chief corner stone.

"18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." Ephesians 2:18-22

The apostles and prophets were commissioned by God as agents of revelation.

"1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: 5By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:" Romans 1:1-5

The Apostle Paul condemns homosexuality in Romans 1.

"22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." Romans 1:22-27

"27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." Romans 1:22-27"

#229 | Posted by MACV1972 at 2008-12-19 04:36 PM | Reply | Flag: Insightful, but, basically, TMI

Get over it liberals! Obama comes straight out of Chicago politics. He used you libs like toilet paper and now you are going flushed down. He said he was ending the war, closing Gitmo, ending don't ask don't tell for gays, etc etc and he going back on all of it. Hey libs, look at his cabinet. They all voted for the war. LMFAO!!!

Liberals love getting used.

BTW- Why are the gays surprised about this. Obama already said he doesn't believe that gays should have the right to marry. He reversed himself on don't ask don't tell in the military. He comes from a predominately black church which history has been VERY anti-gay.

Obama is bending over the gays these days.

"Get over it liberals!"

Sounds familiar:

"The Apostle Paul condemns homosexuality in Romans 1."

So the answer to my question---where does Jesus condemn homosexuality---is: nowhere.

So the answer to my question---where does Jesus condemn homosexuality---is: nowhere. -- #234 | Posted by Danforth

Well, mine would be "Who cares? The First Amendment trumps the Bible."

Indeed. The Republicans rely on the evangelical voting block for their survival, so they are willing to embrace whatever pet social issues these preachers may have. Politicians are whores, and the republicans have been in bed with these crude, intolerant Johns for quite awhile. Fact, reason, and constitution are all irrelevant to evangelicals, and therefore to the politicians that pander to them to get re-elected.

I'm a gay Christian....ain't easy trust me...but I agree with Obama's pick for the invocation.....no group should be catered to....someone's feelings will always get hurt. Rick Warren is a good man and doesn't hate anyone...he has the right to his beliefs as well.

So the answer to my question---where does Jesus condemn homosexuality---is: nowhere. -- #234 | Posted by Danforth

Well, mine would be "Who cares? The First Amendment trumps the Bible."

#236 | Posted by Phoenix at 2008-12-19 09:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Finite man trumps the infinite, sovereign God?

In your dreams.

"Scripture is replete with Christ = God."

But Scripture is full of scientific errors. God says he'll give the world two lights, when all it really is, is one light, and a reflector. No one familiar with say, facts, would claim otherwise. It's a mistake understandably for men to make, but not for an infallible God.

So the answer still remains: Where does Jesus condemn homosexuality? Nowhere.

"supporting the man/woman marriage thing (one would assume, then, that anything outside that would be wrong)"

Why assume that? After his behavior with Mary Magdelene, his parable of the Good Samaritan, and his admonishment to 'judge not', one could just as easily conclude Jesus would've changed water into wine at a gay wedding, too.

Marguerita time in Texas??? You're starting early aren't you??

#224 | Posted by danni at 2008-12

IT WASNT MY ( hic) fault
blame it all on 2112 yesteday on the nooner.....

see...I can be as liberal as you guys and find someone ELSE to blame for almost everything hee hee

So the answer still remains: Where does Jesus condemn homosexuality? Nowhere.

#240 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-12-20

dan dan dan dan

while I am a musician of extraordinary talent and an academian of monsterous porportions and sometime if I put my mind to it I can "TALK REALL PURRTY"

but I am no religious scholar....
but isnt there something about laying down with same sex or something like that...what is that from the bible if not anti homosexual....

"Scripture is replete with Christ = God."

But Scripture is full of scientific errors. God says he'll give the world two lights, when all it really is, is one light, and a reflector. No one familiar with say, facts, would claim otherwise. It's a mistake understandably for men to make, but not for an infallible God.

So the answer still remains: Where does Jesus condemn homosexuality? Nowhere.

#240 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-12-20 11:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Still clinging to those weak protestations, eh? The Bible is God's revelation to man; not an exhaustive scientific encyclopedia. It is replete with many literary forms and devices; poetry, history, allegory, symbolism, etc. We've addressed this two light hang up of yours recently. You're right when you say the Bible speaks of two lights; but, in the time of Moses, the Bible simply did not address the physical structure of the universe precisely in scientific terms. It describes the sun and moon as man would see and understand from his vantange point looking up.

If you choose not to believe, you can find stronger arguements to support your error. In fact, you won't be capable of truly believing unless God grants you faith and repentance. That's also in the Bible.

"The Bible is God's revelation to man; not an exhaustive scientific encyclopedia. It is replete with many literary forms and devices; poetry, history, allegory, symbolism, etc."

But when Paul speaks of homosexuality, it's literal. And you're the arbiter. Yeah...I get it.

And speaking of Paul, he's often referred to as "Apostle Paul", which suggests he was one of the Big 12, but he never actually met Jesus, did he? I mean, other than in the hallucination(s). And when exactly did Jesus say Paul would be speaking for him?

"You're right when you say the Bible speaks of two lights; but, in the time of Moses, the Bible simply did not address the physical structure of the universe precisely in scientific terms. It describes the sun and moon as man would see and understand from his vantange point looking up."

Convenient that God didn't choose to let them know the whole truth back then, when he could easily have explained about reflection, hares only having one stomach, and bats not being birds. He also could've at least told about anaphylactic shock; think of all the great seafood they wasted.

"If you choose not to believe"

Don't be presumptuous. After thousands of religion classes and thousands of church services, I feel I have a grip on Good. And I hear 'love thy neighbor', and 'judge not', and 'do unto others', as well as a charge from Jesus to eradicate inequality. (Jesus, not someone 'speaking for him'). You may disagree with how God made them, I may disagree as well, but we must love them, we must not judge them, and we must ask ourselves: if the tables were turned, and the gay population could vote to make us second-class citizens under the law, would we want that? If no, they we shouldn't do that unto anyone else. The Bible, or at least Jesus, is clear.

My respect for Obama just shot way up. Go Warren

So the answer still remains: Where does Jesus condemn homosexuality? Nowhere.

Mathew 10:15
"I tell you with certainty, it will be more bearable for the region of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town!"

Jesus suggest neither town is saved.

Besides Jesus appointed Paul who dissapproved of homosexuality in Romans 1

Acts 9:15 Jesus Said "Go! This man is my chosen insturment to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

Besides Jesus appointed Paul who dissapproved of homosexuality in Romans 1

Acts 9:15 Jesus Said "Go! This man is my chosen insturment to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

#248 | Posted by rick1234567890 at 2008-12-20 08:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rick....

Don't expect much in reply. I've noticed that Dunfor, "after thousands of religion classes and thousands of church services..." feels he has a grip on Good. Yet he appears to have a tenuous grasp of Scripture at best, evidenced by the facile examples of what he deems to be errors in the Bible.

Can't help but think of Paul's warning to Timothy...

"But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife." 2 Timothy 2:23

"evidenced by the facile examples of what he deems to be errors in the Bible."

Well, are there errors, or not? You claim you believe the Bible. Then you state it's comprised of "poetry, history, allegory, symbolism...". Of course you then decide for yourself (and all of us) which is which. Scientific error? Allegory. Cornerstone of faith which never occurred? Well...Symbolism, that Moses and those forty years in the desert. And gays in the New Covenant? Well, listen to the guy claiming Jesus appeared to him after death, instead of what Jesus said and did regarding 'the least of his brethren' while alive. Thanks, but I'll choose the example Jesus lived any day.

"feels he has a grip on Good"

I'm urging compassion. You're urging exclusion. WWJD?

My respect for Obama just shot way up. Go Warren

#246 | Posted by rick1234567890

good Lincoln manuever

I'm urging compassion. You're urging exclusion. WWJD?

#250 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-12-20 11:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Which is it...can't get it right or are you allergic to truth?

I took the position that church discipline is one means God uses to care for His people. I said I would not shoot from the hip on the particular situation without knowing the all the facts.

That is urging neither compassion nor exclusion.

And WHJD is far more important than WWJD.

"And WHJD is far more important than WWJD."

Yet you'll follow Paul's guess at WWJD rather than WHJD. Curious.

"And WHJD is far more important than WWJD."

Yet you'll follow Paul's guess at WWJD rather than WHJD. Curious.

#253 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-12-21 10:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Care to elaborate on what you call "Paul's guess at WWJD?"

In his writings, Paul focused on What Has Jesus Done...

" 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." 1 Corinthians 2:2

"Care to elaborate on what you call "Paul's guess at WWJD?""

Paul pretends Jesus would condemn homosexuals, when Jesus said and did nothing of the sort.

"Care to elaborate on what you call "Paul's guess at WWJD?""

Paul pretends Jesus would condemn homosexuals, when Jesus said and did nothing of the sort.

#255 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-12-24 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, are you being disingenuous, or are you that clueless on the authority of the New Testament? It's the same God who condemned homosexuality in the Old Testament.

"6For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." Malachi 3:6

"7Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning." James 1:17

"8Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hebrews 13:8

Or did you think that God the Son was not eternal with the Father and the Spirit?

"So, are you being disingenuous, or are you that clueless on the authority of the New Testament?"

Neither, I'm being discriminatory. I only want Jesus to speak for Jesus. Call me particular, but when a guy whose only meeting with Jesus was via a hallucination long after Jesus died, I'll choose to follow what He actually said and did over contradictory claims Paul may make.

"It's the same God who condemned homosexuality in the Old Testament."

But you said those laws went the way of the poly-cotton shirt prohibition. You don't get to cite OT rules as proof between bites of a shrimp cocktail.

"6 ... 7 ... 8"

Thanks for pointing out other errors, since you've already admitted the Son repudiated the OT laws of The Father, proving they're not always the same.

So...after a half-dozen or so posts, you've yet to show where Jesus spoke against homosexuality. Not someone speaking for him who never met him, but specifically where Jesus condemned gays. Can't do it?

"So, are you being disingenuous, or are you that clueless on the authority of the New Testament?"

Neither, I'm being discriminatory. I only want Jesus to speak for Jesus. Call me particular, but when a guy whose only meeting with Jesus was via a hallucination long after Jesus died, I'll choose to follow what He actually said and did over contradictory claims Paul may make.

"It's the same God who condemned homosexuality in the Old Testament."

But you said those laws went the way of the poly-cotton shirt prohibition. You don't get to cite OT rules as proof between bites of a shrimp cocktail.

"6 ... 7 ... 8"

Thanks for pointing out other errors, since you've already admitted the Son repudiated the OT laws of The Father, proving they're not always the same.

So...after a half-dozen or so posts, you've yet to show where Jesus spoke against homosexuality. Not someone speaking for him who never met him, but specifically where Jesus condemned gays. Can't do it?

#257 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-12-25 12:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

So, after a half-dozen or so posts, you still exhibit a complete ignorance of the difference between the ceremonial law, which has passed away, and the moral law, which is eternal. The ceremonial law pertained to Israel and taught the people of the covenant to distinguish between and not to mix the holy with the profane. A major aspect of Israel's failure to keep faith with the convenant was syncretism (mixing worship of Yaweh with the idolatrous worship of the surrounding pagan nations). The book of Acts records that the former prohibition on unclean foods is no longer in effect and prefigures the inclusion of the Gentiles (considered unclean by the Jews) in the New Covenant of salvation:

"9The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."

14But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."

15And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." 16This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again." Acts 10: 9-16

Your continued harping on the cermonial and dietary laws of the Old Covenant being applicable today is without a basis in Scripture.

But then, continuing to stumble in the darkness, you likely consider Peter's vision a hallucination as well.

"So, after a half-dozen or so posts, you still exhibit a complete ignorance of the difference between the ceremonial law, which has passed away, and the moral law, which is eternal. "

And you still exhibit a complete failure at the attempt to show where Jesus condemned homosexuality. You tried to quote passages where scripture states the Father and the Son are the same, yet you've already admitted the Son repudiated the Father's laws of the OT, so that fails. And you still want to insist someone who never met Jesus except through a hallucination is somehow authorized to speak for Him, and contradict His actions during life. Call me a red-print freak, but Paul's homophobia doesn't fit with Jesus's embrace of everyone.

"But then, continuing to stumble in the darkness, you likely consider Peter's vision a hallucination as well."

Translation: After all this, I still don't have a single passage where Jesus condemns gays, so I'll attack your faith instead.