NationStates Jolt Archive

Setting aside our other disagreements -- which to you seem to stem from my not being personally LGBT and therefore inadequately sensitive, I object to this claim.

I live in California and have contributed/am contributing to the fight against Prop. 8 and against its predecessor Prop. 22 (and for the legal challenges to both).

Although, since this inauguration dispute, I have been bombarded with evidence of Warren's despicable and indefensible comments about homosexuality, I do not recall Warren playing an important role in the passage of Prop. 8. (I had, of course, heard of Warren - as one of the countries leading evangelicals and a surprisingly moderate one at that, as well as the host of the McCain-Obama summit. Although the ugly vehemence of his homophobic comments surprises me, that he takes that general position does not.)

I asked you at least once earlier to tell us what exactly Warren did to be considered a leading proponent of Prop. 8 and you have yet to answer.

I can only conclude that you are letting your personal dismay and frustration over this controversy color the facts.
wellllll

he is pretty bad on gay rights. if you saw that nbc interview when he was asked about gay marriage he responded with an answer on how gay promiscuity is wrong. it made me want to slap his smug face.

then, if you read hitchen's slate post on the subject, it turns out that he doesnt think that jews go to heaven or that mormons are christians.

and on the rachel maddow show on msnbc last night they pullled a quote off his church's webpage that stated that no unrepentant homosexual need apply for membership.

he's kinda creepy really.

wellllll

he is pretty bad on gay rights. if you saw that nbc interview when he was asked about gay marriage he responded with an answer on how gay promiscuity is wrong. it made me want to slap his smug face.

then, if you read hitchen's slate post on the subject, it turns out that he doesnt think that jews go to heaven or that mormons are christians.

and on the rachel maddow show on msnbc last night they pullled a quote off his church's webpage that stated that no unrepentant homosexual need apply for membership.

he's kinda creepy really.

Yeah, except that's the point. Iran is a lot creepier than that. And Cuba is creepy and Venezuela is creepy and Medvedev is creepy.

You know who doesn't talk to people who disagree with him and shuns them? George W. Bush.

Now, maybe you're a big fan of GWB but I'm not. And I like a president who talks to people who disagree with him, because Rick Warren is hugely, hugely rich and popular, so Rick Warren may be the outlet but like it or not, an asston of people agree with him.

And you can't just dismiss those people. They are not merely ribbon clerks to be ordered about. They're proud, accomplished people with lives and homes and families who are doing their best to look out for their children's future.

So you have to include them and make them feel accomodated. You have to negotiate.

Otherwise you might as well have re-elected the Bush administration.

:eek:

P.S. Besides, it was a concession to the south. Obama didn't appoint anyone from the South to any executive post in his administration at all. It was a big deal when he didn't. So this is the concession. And I'd rather have a speaker at an inauguration who has bad views on homosexual rights than have that same person as the head of some agency or in Obama's cabinet.

Yeah, except that's the point. Iran is a lot creepier than that. And Cuba is creepy and Venezuela is creepy and Medvedev is creepy.

You know who doesn't talk to people who disagree with him and shuns them? George W. Bush.

Now, maybe you're a big fan of GWB but I'm not. And I like a president who talks to people who disagree with him, because Rick Warren is hugely, hugely rich and popular, so Rick Warren may be the outlet but like it or not, an asston of people agree with him.

And you can't just dismiss those people. They are not merely ribbon clerks to be ordered about. They're proud, accomplished people with lives and homes and families who are doing their best to look out for their children's future.

So you have to include them and make them feel accomodated. You have to negotiate.

Otherwise you might as well have re-elected the Bush administration.

:eek:
yeah i know what you mean.

and i do like it that warren is getting his own ration of shit for accepting the honor.

but i do wonder how odious is too odious.

But it is hysteria.

Just because Obama is asking Warren to bless his inauguration doesn't mean he's asking him to be the best man at his wedding or anything like that. He's trying to get along with the religious right, not praying to them.

(Besides, arguing against him so vocally is horrible strategy. You will never have a perfect president, and trying to force it will tend to give you a bad president. Remember Nader in 2000?)

:rolleyes: x 1,000

When you are calling it hysteria, you are kinda excusing Warren's moronic speeches like homosexuality is like pedophilia. "Oh yea, its kinda a wrong choice but actually not that wrong cause of X,Y,Z so dont be hysterical :rolleyes:"

And Nervun's post of equating GLBT crowd to religious right is almost as moronic.

Rick Warren may be the outlet but like it or not, an asston of people agree with him.


Hitler had a huge support as well.

Not that Warren is anyone like Hitler but many people agreeing with someone can be irrelevant on certain occasions.

P.S. Besides, it was a concession to the south. Obama didn't appoint anyone from the South to any executive post in his administration at all. It was a big deal when he didn't. So this is the concession. And I'd rather have a speaker at an inauguration who has bad views on homosexual rights than have that same person as the head of some agency or in Obama's cabinet.
how does he count as a bone thrown to the south?

Hitler had a huge support as well.

Not that Warren is anyone like Hitler but many people agreeing with someone can be irrelevant on certain occasions.

Yeah, and Britney Spears used to be really popular, too, and look at what happened to that.

But Britney Spears isn't dangerous. Rick Warren doesn't lead the nation. And he can't form an army. And he can't implement the tools of genocide. And he can't make treaties with other nations and then break them.

Sarah Palin is probably a big fan of Rick Warren if she's ever heard of him. And she just ran for a position where she would have had at least an influence on the powers named.

And she lost. And she lost huge. And some people speculate that she was primarily responsible for losing that campaign.

So...ya know.

:p

Yeah, and Britney Spears used to be really popular, too, and look at what happened to that.

But Britney Spears isn't dangerous. Rick Warren doesn't lead the nation. And he can't form an army. And he can't implement the tools of genocide. And he can't make treaties with other nations and then break them.

Sarah Palin is probably a big fan of Rick Warren if she's ever heard of him. And she just ran for a position where she would have had at least an influence on the powers named.

And she lost. And she lost huge. And some people speculate that she was primarily responsible for losing that campaign.

So...ya know.

:p

I'm not saying Warren is dangerous. I'm saying, him being popular does not neccessarily warrant him doing the inauguration thingie.

See you are kinda playing it down too. A lot of people seem to see this as no big deal, interesting...

how does he count as a bone thrown to the south?

Because the South largely feels the way Rick Warren does. And Southern whites don't feel represented by a black man who is for gay marriage. And a lot of Southern blacks don't, either. And they were extra pissed cuz Obama didn't name any of them to any positions.

Obama didn't just do this because he agrees with Warren. He may very well agree with him, but that's not a good enough reason. He's a professional. He's not going to do something just because he feels it's right to do it. He's doing cost/benefits of his actions well before he ever does anything. And there are committees who brainstorm before it.

Obama and his advisors arrived at the conclusion that Rick Warren would benefit them, and that the flack would be minimal and that they could weather it. Who else would they be trying to pacify with Rick Warren besides the South? They're catering to every voter in California and Florida who voted for Obama but also voted to ban gay marriage. In Florida's case a constitutional amendment doing so.

P.S. I know California isn't considered in the South but you know what I mean. The South was a big benefit, too, even if Rick Warren wasn't meant solely for them.

I'm not saying Warren is dangerous. I'm saying, him being popular does not neccessarily warrant him doing the inauguration thingie.

See you are kinda playing it down too. A lot of people seem to see this as no big deal, interesting...

That is absolutely correct.

Do you know about what's happening in Zimbabwe? Just because some people have a minority sexual orientation and are therefore banned by the majority from getting a tax break and a social status doesn't mean anything.

On the scale of world problems, the homosexual rights issue is compelling, but also minor in terms of the scale of relative suffering.

Sorry. I prefer the big picture.

Because the South largely feels the way Rick Warren does. And Southern whites don't feel represented by a black man who is for gay marriage. And a lot of Southern blacks don't, either. And they were extra pissed cuz Obama didn't name any of them to any positions.

Obama didn't just do this because he agrees with Warren. He may very well agree with him, but that's not a good enough reason. He's a professional. He's not going to do something just because he feels it's right to do it. He's doing cost/benefits of his actions well before he ever does anything. And there are committees who brainstorm before it.

Obama and his advisors arrived at the conclusion that Rick Warren would benefit them, and that the flack would be minimal and that they could weather it. Who else would they be trying to pacify with Rick Warren besides the South? They're catering to every voter in California and Florida who voted for Obama but also voted to ban gay marriage. In Florida's case a constitutional amendment doing so.

P.S. I know California isn't considered in the South but you know what I mean. The South was a big benefit, too, even if Rick Warren wasn't meant solely for them.
mega church evangelicals who are very much NOT the constuency of the democratic party. its not a bad thing to throw them a bone--they are always very grateful when the republicans do that.

oh well i find the position of "giver of the invocation at the inauguration" to be the smallest possible bone to be thrown to anyone. im willing to let it slide as long as it doesnt prove to be a harbinger of things to come.

That is absolutely correct.

Do you know about what's happening in Zimbabwe? Just because some people have a minority sexual orientation and are therefore banned by the majority from getting a tax break and a social status doesn't mean anything.

On the scale of world problems, the homosexual rights issue is compelling, but also minor in terms of the scale of relative suffering.

Sorry. I prefer the big picture.

Well, if your mother dies, I guess it is no more meaningful than tens of thousands dying each day to poverty and preventable diseases.

Edit: AGAIN, gay marriage isnt the issue here. Do you not read?

Well, if your mother dies, I guess it is no more meaningful than tens of thousands dying each day to poverty and preventable diseases.

Indeed yes. But that's the thing about it. Issues aren't decided by passion.

They're decided by law. And law isn't passionate. It's cold and methodical and makes an attempt at being logical.

And that's hard on people, and I am very much for gay rights, but I'm also against genocide. And genocide still happens, so I'm not surprised people still don't get all the rights that they're born with.

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Indeed, Prudence will do something and something something.

I forget the rest.

Well, if your mother dies, I guess it is no more meaningful than tens of thousands dying each day to poverty and preventable diseases.

Edit: AGAIN, gay marriage isnt the issue here. Do you not read?

Don't trip. I thought it was a metaphor.

I thought you had a friend or something that was gay.

What do I know? Your Mom died?

That sucks.

Don't trip. I thought it was a metaphor.

I thought you had a friend or something that was gay.

What do I know? Your Mom died?

That sucks.

Umm no, but if someone's mother dies, dont tell em about "the bigger picture".

In this case, Obama's choice is wrong and I'm gay so dont tell me about "the bigger picture".

And of course, fighting against global poverty and global warming is more important than gay marriage in USA but I fail to see how this justifies Obama's choice. Is there no pastor or whatever in USA who is an environmentalist and fights against global warming but does not compare homosexuality to pedophilia and aware that it's natural given its prevelance in animals? As you can see gay marriage isnt an issue for me here.

Umm no, but if someone's mother dies, dont tell em about "the bigger picture".

In this case, Obama's choice is wrong and I'm gay so dont tell me about "the bigger picture".

And of course, fighting against global poverty and global warming is more important than gay marriage in USA but I fail to see how this justifies Obama's choice. Is there no pastor or whatever in USA who is an environmentalist and fights against global warming but does not compare homosexuality to pedophilia and aware that it's natural given its prevelance in animals? As you can see gay marriage isnt an issue for me here.

Not one who can give him the support of the voters he's catering to, which is the whole reason Obama is doing it. I mean, there aren't exactly a wide range of preachers who are inoffensive about homosexuality.

Not one who can give him the support of the voters he's catering to, which is the whole reason Obama is doing it. I mean, there aren't exactly a wide range of preachers who are inoffensive about homosexuality.
and in the end, if obama hasnt given the gay community and their supporters good reason to vote to reelect him for years from now, this will be the least of his failures on their behalf.

Not one who can give him the support of the voters he's catering to...

You dont know that for sure. That should require some homework.

For those of you who forget me, I supported Hillary Rodham Clinton during the presidential primaries. I was bitterly disappointed when she was defeated by Barack Obama, whom I later voted for in the general election. One of the arguments I made against Obama at the time was the argument that I was unsure about his commitment to Democratic values. While I do not consider myself to be a bitter partisan, I nevertheless insist on a Democratic candidate who not only shares my values, but ACTS on them.


And then this happened:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/17/obama.warren/index.html

This only further emphasizes the concerns I already had about President-Elect Obama going into the election. I have long feared that his desire for moderation will override his willingness to fight for Democratic principles, such as equal rights for gays and lesbians, and for a woman's right to choose. Now we are confronted with the very real possibility that Obama will cede the troublesome social issues to the Republicans in order to achieve political victory in other areas.

I do not consider myself a partisan, but the Democratic Party has won sweeping victories in two consecutive national elections. We have control of the congressional and presidential venues of the national government. While this does not clear us to chart a far-left course politically, I think it IS time for the Democratic Party to wake up and understand that is is now the Democratic agenda in Washington, not the GOP. I did not vote for Obama and the Democrats because I want to concede policy ideals to conservatives. I voted for them to change trajectory from right to left politically. If the Democrats do not start to grow a spine really quickly, I will withhold my support in 2010 and 2012.

You are a bitter partisan. You are not willing to work with those who oppose you.

The fact he is willing to give conservatives some of what they want to gain some of what he wants is called "compromise". It is what our nation's political system should be based on, working together.

You dont know that for sure. That should require some homework.

Probably.

Look, no matter what I say you're gonna feel the way you feel.

Here, this will make you laugh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHCrOtSzIBg

And I like a president who talks to people who disagree with him
Stop right there. For the thousandth time, if Obama were TALKING to Warren, I would have no problem with that. What he is doing is singling him out for a prominent honor, the biggest plum there is for an American preacher, increasing his influence and power.
Otherwise you might as well have re-elected the Bush administration.
I feel like we did.
Obama didn't appoint anyone from the South to any executive post in his administration at all.
And he hasn't appointed any gay people either, NOR invited any of us to speak. Will we have any place at all, or has he thrown us under the bus completely? What the fuck did I knock on doors for Obama for?
I'm not saying Warren is dangerous.
I am.
I've had Christians try to kill me, twice. The one who held me at gunpoint was shrieking that since I was gay I must be a child molestor and I better stay away from his kids: this is precisely the incitement that Warren propagates. The ones who left me on the railroad tracks appear to have been Dobsonites: Warren is slightly more extreme than Dobson (Dobson thinks we can be "turned straight" by the proper therapy; Warren advocates that we be neutered, instead).

I am.
I've had Christians try to kill me, twice. The one who held me at gunpoint was shrieking that since I was gay I must be a child molestor and I better stay away from his kids: this is precisely the incitement that Warren propagates. The ones who left me on the railroad tracks appear to have been Dobsonites: Warren is slightly more extreme than Dobson (Dobson thinks we can be "turned straight" by the proper therapy; Warren advocates that we be neutered, instead).

In that case, find a way to go to the inauguration and tell them both these things. Call Warren on it. FORCE Warren to defend himself, instead of simply assuming Obama will let you hanging just because he invited Warren (P.S.: He also invited a gay rights leader) and washing your hands off of it. ARGUE. Speak your mind. Go there and practice the fight I've been practicing in this forum for years, only this time with the ability to change something. Heck, if you can't do it, start, or join, a movement. If you can't start, or join, a movement, set up a webpage to remind people of what Warren spouts - instead of getting desperate over Obama inviting Warren to a ceremony he ALSO invited gay rights leaders to. Don't simply assume Obama is "with them" because he invited Warren for dinner as opposed to telling Warren to go f*ck himself. That's not how it works, and, if you want your voice to be heard, you must speak somehow.

Did it ever occur to you that Obama might be inviting Warren PRECISELY to make a "reaching out" symbolic gesture that he could use later as an example of how "he reached out but Warren didn't budge", thereby empowering Obama to pass more liberal laws that he otherwise might not be able to? Did it ever occur to you that Warren might just be being (rightfully) used as a PAWN in a move to favor exactly the people he despises? Could it not be that Obama's using his inauguration just to give Warren enough rope to hang himself?

I hate Warren. And I hate Dobson. I really do. But you don't win against your enemies by simply directly attacking them. You win against them by keeping them close enough for you to screw them over when the time is right. You win against them by making them maneuver against themselves without realizing it. You win against them by making it seem like you want to "reach out" and making THEM seem unreasonable, thereby scapegoating THEM. I'd LOVE to see both Warren and Dobson suffer directly, in an obvious way that made it clear whoever acted like them would suffer as well. But in practice, you must beat your enemies by cunning, not by direct attack.

Stop right there. For the thousandth time, if Obama were TALKING to Warren, I would have no problem with that. What he is doing is singling him out for a prominent honor, the biggest plum there is for an American preacher, increasing his influence and power.
I feel like we did.

And he hasn't appointed any gay people either, NOR invited any of us to speak. Will we have any place at all, or has he thrown us under the bus completely? What the fuck did I knock on doors for Obama for?

So that President McCain and Vice President Palin aren't in office, where they would actively deprive the GLBT community of pretty much every right that the GLBT community has managed to get since the fight began.

Voting is a compromise. Assessing a president is a compromise. I believe in realpolitik. I hate that Hillary Clinton is going to be secretary of state. I hate increased taxes, I hate anti-free trade arguments, I hate welfare programs, I hate the auto industry bailout, I hate FISA (that Obama voted for). I hate that Michelle Obama is a big critic of Wal-Mart. I hate a lot of the liberal garbage present in the Obama camp. I hate Rick Warren, too. I'm an atheist who believes people were created equal and should have equal rights, regardless of which set of genitalia they prefer to suck on.

But I voted for Obama despite the "R" on my voter card. And I would again in a heartbeat.

You shouldn't chop off your own head merely because your beard doesn't look the way you want.

It would seem more logical to assume that his choice of Warren is intended to speak to those who DO know what he is.

Relatively moderate for the religious right?

What is not what?

Sorry, I was going to go back and elaborate once I was done with the rest of that post and forgot. Just ignore it, I don't want to bother at this point.

More in a "OMG he is going to let the raging homophobes rage all they want" kind of way.

Any president has to do that. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech", remember?

The four I named are thoroughly well informed.

Ok.

He is sending a signal about what kinds of things he won't mind if they campaign against: they can go ahead and squash all the gay-rights bills, just so long as they go along on environmental issues and the like.

No, you're reading that into it.

Obama isn't saying a thing about gay rights with this. He is saying that he wants good relations with Rick Warren and the people he represents. It doesn't mean he's actually going to listen to them.

I have already promised not to scrape him off my car until at least January 20 when I will be listening very, very carefully. I will make further inquiries into Canada, however, since such processes are time-consuming.

Y'know, if you never moved to Canada under Bush, now's really late to start.

The smart thing to do would have been to GET OUT.

Yes.

But you know it's rude to nitpick on stuff like that, right? You haven't proved the point the analogy was trying to make wrong, you just proved the analogy wrong.

That's not possible.
I am not out to "win an argument" with the Warrens of this world, but to DEFEAT them.

You're never going to defeat them. (Racism still exists. Sexism still exists. There are still people who think the earth is only 6000 years old.) The best you can do is prove them wrong.

We don't HAVE TO let them do anything.

No, you don't, but it will get much easier for you if Warren isn't against you.

He isn't inviting this man for a discussion. He is giving him a platform to speak one-sidedly.

Which he needs to give in order to discuss anything with him.

People don't suddenly stop being your enemy out of nowhere. You have to prove that you're not hostile to get them to stop being hostile.

I did not realize the reference was to Byrd, whose views have evolved considerably over the years.

Yes, so?

There is no indication whatsoever that Warren has been asked to be less vocal. On the contrary, he is being promoted AS IS.

Why do you think Obama would ask Warren to speak if not to signal to the religious right that he's willing to talk to them?

??? No he doesn't. Presidents talk to all kinds of people, without commending them to the public.

Not people who don't like them.

Or at least, they don't get any results from them when they do.

No, he is giving this man PERMISSION to keep sliming me and doing me hurt. He is indicating that it doesn't matter to him in the slightest how vicious Warren is towards us.

Where are you getting that?

If you declare war on anyone who doesn't agree with you exactly, you're not going to have any allies left.

He was under the delusion that he WASN'T talking about a crazy warmonger. If he had, indeed, knowingly supported Hitler's crazy warmongering, then yes indeed, that would mean he favored, or at least didn't care much about, crazy warmongering.
Here, what Obama is saying is that HE DOESN'T MIND Warren's attacks on us.
Though I would really rather get off that quote, Gandhi said that in 1940. Hitler had already annexed who knows how many countries and invaded Poland and France by then. I don't think Gandhi could have doubted that Hitler was a crazy warmonger; what Gandhi was praising is that he seemed to be a humane crazy warmonger.

Which makes the analogy even better, really.

News:

Barney Frank opposes the Rick Warren decision.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jL1wHfvxbVuH4tkCehILUCNJjqrgD9579L700

Lawmaker says `no' to Rev. Warren at inauguration

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The first openly gay member of Congress said Sunday 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," Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said in a broadcast interview.

"If he was inviting the Rev. Warren to participate in a forum and to make a speech, that would be a good thing," Frank said. "But being singled out to give the prayer at the inauguration is a high honor. It has traditionally given as a mark of great respect. And, yes, I think it was wrong to single him out for this mark of respect."

Warren, a best-selling author and leader of a Southern California megachurch, is a popular evangelical who stresses the need for action on social issues such as reducing poverty and protecting the environment, alongside traditional theological themes.

But gay rights advocates, who strongly supported Obama during the election, are angry over Warren's backing of a California ballot initiative banning gay marriage. That measure was approved by voters last month.

Although Warren has said that he has nothing personally against gays, he has condemned same-sex marriage.

"I have many gay friends. I've eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church," he said in a recent interview with BeliefNet. But later in the interview, he compared the "redefinition of marriage" to include gay marriage to legitimizing incest, child abuse, and polygamy.

Warren, in a speech on Saturday, said he took "enormous heat" three years ago for inviting Obama to speak at his church, even though the two men disagree on some issues. "Now he's invited me," Warren said.

Obama defended the selection of Warren last week, telling reporters 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.

Frank appeared on "Late Edition" on CNN."

And he hasn't appointed any gay people either, NOR invited any of us to speak. Will we have any place at all, or has he thrown us under the bus completely? What the fuck did I knock on doors for Obama for?


I don't believe that comparison quite works. The population of the South outnumbers homosexuals by a huge margin, and the fact that we (the south, that is) get no representation is unacceptable. Geographical location is very different from sexual orientation, and they cannot be compared as you attempted to do.

Although I am southern and raised in that natural southern, "gays are evil" atmosphere, I'm also a logical person. Although as a Christian I truly believe such conduct is immoral, that's only my religious opinion. From a governmental standpoint, there's no reason why y'all shouldn't be able to marry. It clearly breaks the first ammendment.

I want to abolish government marriage. I want the government to only give out Civil Unions, to homosexuals and heterosexuals. If the couple wants to get the Civil Union respected by a certain religion, they have that right. If they don't want to, that's great too. But religion should have no place in government or marriage.

Anyways, I'm boot scoot outta here. I really don't like debating (this subject at least). Just to let you know, most of us Christians really aren't like that. Although most believe your being gay is immoral, very very few would take drastic steps as that man did. I hope he didn't fully ruin your view of Christianity because of his hypocritical actions.

I find that a little strange. People who were in California heard his name rather often.

I wasn't in CA. I live in GA. I was watching the proceedings from afar.

I had heard Warren's name before, both in conjunction with The Purpose Driven Life and with the religious forum he hosted. But I didn't hear much about him in reference to Prop 8 until the announcement that he'd be giving the invocation.

No, actually, it never does.

It generally does in ceremonies where both are used.

He didn't have any disagreements with Wright when he asked Wright to marry them.

Yes, he did. One only needs to read his books to realize that he's always had disagreements with Wright. And it was clear in his speech on race relations when the Wright controversy broke.

Obama could have introduced it into the Senate himself, if he was such a "fierce" advocate.

Maybe. There's a lot in the Senate that's based on seniority. Getting a bill introduced isn't as easy there as it is in the House, from what I understand - not as a junior senator.

No, it isn't, just a statement of fact. It was Warren's decision, not mine, to attack me vituperatively. It was Obama's decision to grant him further prominence and respectability; Obama may or may not take friendly actions to offset this one, but increasing Warren's power in any measure is, in and of itself, inimical to me.

....which is all irrelevant to the fact that whatever reaction you have to these things is your choice.

I was not assuming that you are not among those who "do care", but I dispute your assessment of how "most" of us feel. You say "most" don't have any doubts? Well, the Human Rights Campaign does, and they speak for a hell of a lot more people than you do.

I know what the HRC has to say about it. I get the near-daily emails.

But every word put out by the HRC is not gospel, nor are they responding with the kind of hysteria you are.

He will be ranting about homosexuality and same-sex marriage for years to come, with some boost to the amount of media attention he can command.

Given the level of fame he already has, I really don't think this is going to boost it much.

And Southern whites don't feel represented by a black man who is for gay marriage.

I do. Or, rather, I would, if I ever had the opportunity to vote for one (assuming he represented me on other issues, of course).

Obama and his advisors arrived at the conclusion that Rick Warren would benefit them, and that the flack would be minimal and that they could weather it. Who else would they be trying to pacify with Rick Warren besides the South?

The Midwest?

The Midwest?

He won most of the midwest...

He won most of the midwest...

He won CO and NM, but most of the middle of the country went red (as usual).

He won CO and NM, but most of the middle of the country went red (as usual).

He also won Michigan, IL, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota...

Granted, he didnt "win" the mid-west, like I previously claimed, but he didnt lose it. I dont think he needs to throw most of the mid-west a bone.

I think hes having Warren speak because hes an ideological opposite with whom Obama can find a lot of common ground on issues like poverty and AIDS.


I have a feeling Warren will spend most of the time talking about a Christian's duty to help the down trodden, and wont even mention gay marriage. Hes not going to abuse Obama's trust.

In that case, find a way to go to the inauguration and tell them both these things.

I work for a living. I can't be there (nor could I force myself onto the stage even I did; you're being quite unrealistic).
instead of getting desperate over Obama inviting Warren to a ceremony he ALSO invited gay rights leaders to.
You are mistaken. No gay rights leaders are invited to speak, just one leader of the black rights movement who has also incidently spoken up for us.
Don't simply assume Obama is "with them" because he invited Warren for dinner
How many times do I have to repeat this? Obama DIDN'T JUST INVITE HIM OVER FOR DINNER: I wouldn't have any problem with that. Obama singled him out for high honor.
So that President McCain and Vice President Palin aren't in office, where they would actively deprive the GLBT community of pretty much every right that the GLBT community has managed to get since the fight began.

On the federal level, there are ZERO such rights. There literally isn't a thing a Republican President could "take away" that Clinton didn't already give away.
Relatively moderate for the religious right?

Except against us, where he is worse than Dobson, if not quite as bad as Phelps.
Y'know, if you never moved to Canada under Bush, now's really late to start.
2001 was already late in my life to emigrate.
But you know it's rude to nitpick on stuff like that, right? You haven't proved the point the analogy was trying to make wrong, you just proved the analogy wrong.
??? You argued that IF the situation in this country, for us, is analogous to 1930's Germany, for the Jews, then Obama's conduct is reasonable. If it isn't like 1930's Germany, then it isn't reasonable.
You're never going to defeat them. (Racism still exists. Sexism still exists.
Legally, however, there are protections against racial and sexual discrimination. If you are telling me there are NEVER going to be any legal protections, then I should get out of this country, or just kill myself and get it over with.
it will get much easier for you if Warren isn't against you.
That's not going to happen. He is a rat bastard who will seek my harm all the days that he lives. It will get easier for me if his kind is denied power.
People don't suddenly stop being your enemy out of nowhere. You have to prove that you're not hostile to get them to stop being hostile.
I don't EXPECT Warren to stop being my enemy. I didn't expect Obama to help promote my enemies.
I did not realize the reference was to Byrd, whose views have evolved considerably over the years.
Yes, so?
If the story had been about Obama talking to someone who CURRENTLY holds extremely hostile prejudices against blacks, it would have been more meaningful than a story about him talking to someone who USED TO hold such views, back when Obama was a toddler.
Why do you think Obama would ask Warren to speak if not to signal to the religious right that he's willing to talk to them?
Inviting them to come and talk would have been very different. He is signalling to the religious right that he is willing to have THEM talk, in the most vituperative of manners, as long as it is only about us.
If you declare war on anyone who doesn't agree with you exactly, you're not going to have any allies left.
Calling me a child molester and advocating that I be neutered is a little more than "not agreeing with me exactly". So is treating that kind of vilification as just another example of a wonderful "diversity of opinion".
I don't believe that comparison quite works. The population of the South outnumbers homosexuals by a huge margin, and the fact that we (the south, that is) get no representation is unacceptable.
The South voted against him. I knocked on doors for him. That's a difference.
I want to abolish government marriage. I want the government to only give out Civil Unions
Marriage is the LEGAL word. If you need a difference in wording for religious and legal institutions, then call the religious ceremony a "wedding" or "matrimony": you are welcome to those words, but "marriage" is the word in the law codes.
Just to let you know, most of us Christians really aren't like that.
I know that. If Obama wanted an evangelical Christian to preach the invocation, he could have found lots who might have called us immoral, opposed marriage rights for us, etc. but DIDN'T ATTACK US VILELY the way that this man does.
Although most believe your being gay is immoral, very very few would take drastic steps as that man did. I hope he didn't fully ruin your view of Christianity because of his hypocritical actions.
I must admit that I do always take a wary view when someone self-describes as a "Christian"; I always have to wonder whether that means, one of *those* Christians.
It generally does in ceremonies where both are used.
I wouldn't know about any other ceremony. In the inauguration, the invocation slot is traditionally reserved for the most, or one of the most, prominent preachers of the country; the benediction for someone less well known.
....which is all irrelevant to the fact that whatever reaction you have to these things is your choice.
The fact that Obama is acting as an enemy to me (which is just a fact) is of a little bit of relevance to my choice as to how seriously I take that. It may indeed prove true that I am overreacting, that Obama will act as a friend to me in other later actions to counterbalance this one: but promoting Warren is inimical to me, that's just a fact.

On 538, it has been noted that change.gov got a major reworking on gay-rights issues: in the initial post-election agenda, we were scarcely mentioned and got no substantive undertakings at all. People have pointed to statements Obama made on the campaign trail as an indication of his intentions, but everybody knows that the whole campaign platform can't possibly make it onto the actual agenda once in office, that never happens: it is necessary to decide what is a priority, what is back-burner, and what isn't really going to be pushed at all, and we are entirely in the third category, not even at the bottom of the priority list. This is what made this Warren incident so distressing: that it was the first signal speaking to us at all; either it was intended to speak to us (as an F.U.), or it was a sign that he wasn't thinking about us, at all, not even slightly. Presumably in response to this flap, change.gov now have substantive discussion: an olive branch, I guess, although made only to the wired-in and kept out of public view.
Given the level of fame he already has, I really don't think this is going to boost it much.
He's gotten a great deal of press attention these last few days.
I have a feeling Warren will spend most of the time talking about a Christian's duty to help the down trodden, and wont even mention gay marriage. Hes not going to abuse Obama's trust.
I would be seriously appalled if Warren actually used the inauguration platform to attack us. But assuming that is not the case, he is bound to use his increased press attention to continue to attack us.

Y'know, I haven't seen any atheist complaining about Obama having a pastor/minister of any religion at his inauguration. I could rightfully bitch and moan about him having a benediction at all, but I don't, because it's his choice as to who does what at his inauguration. (Separation of church and state, promoting one faith over the other, all that jazz.) Do we have the right to tell him what he must do with what is possibly the crowning achievement of his life? (The acknowledgment of it, anyway.)

I wouldn't have any problem with that. Obama singled him out for high honor."He has a pastor! Oh noes, he wants to violate the Constitution and turn America into a Christian state!" Come on, people. :rolleyes:

Y'know, I haven't seen any atheist complaining about Obama having a pastor/minister of any religion at his inauguration. I could rightfully bitch and moan about him having a benediction at all, but I don't, because it's his choice as to who does what at his inauguration. (Separation of church and state, promoting one faith over the other, all that jazz.) Do we have the right to tell him what he must do with what is possibly the crowning achievement of his life? (The acknowledgment of it, anyway.)

"He has a pastor! Oh noes, he wants to violate the Constitution and turn America into a Christian state!" Come on, people. :rolleyes:

If anything, I'd almost swear the Potato Boy Blight was spreading (i.e. an incessant pathological need to find any pretense of Obama as a failed President even before he's sworn in to office).

If anything, I'd almost swear the Potato Boy Blight was spreading (i.e. an incessant pathological need to find any pretense of Obama as a failed President even before he's sworn in to office).I know, right?
I think this whole thing has been so blown out of proportion that all we can really do is laugh at it.

Y'know, I haven't seen any atheist complaining about Obama having a pastor/minister of any religion at his inauguration.
If the pastor said that those who don't believe in Jesus shouldn't be considered citizens of the US or allowed the same legal rights, yes, there would be complaints. I know this because I remember in 2001 when Rev. Campbell giving the benediction said things to that effect, and indeed there were complaints that this was an ominous sign about what kind of Presidency Bush was going to have: and those misgivings proved quite well founded.
Do we have the right to tell him what he must do with what is possibly the crowning achievement of his life?
He can, obviously, do whatever he likes. But what he chooses to do sends a symbolic message about what he will do with his Presidency.

He can, obviously, do whatever he likes. But what he chooses to do sends a symbolic message about what he will do with his Presidency.Let him send whatever message he wants. I'll judge him on what he actually does while in office.

Yeah, well, I'm just in deep depression. Prop 8 took every bit of joy out of election night, for me and for gays in general. All our friends threw a big party, and we had to go to a funeral instead, and nobody sent a sympathy card, and now they're throwing another party that we're not even invited to, although one of the killers is.

Yeah, well, I'm just in deep depression. Prop 8 took every bit of joy out of election night, for me and for gays in general. All our friends threw a big party, and we had to go to a funeral instead, and nobody sent a sympathy card, and now they're throwing another party that we're not even invited to, although one of the killers is.I have gay friends, and they partied just like everyone else the night of the election. And I live in Alabama. You know, one of those Southern States. Don't turn a loose pile of snow into an avalanche.

Obama singled him out for high honor.

Trust me on this, I'd LOVE to see Rick Warren suffer, in pain and in death. However, I'll repeat, because you don't seem to have read that part:

DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT OBAMA MIGHT BE USING HIM? AND THAT WARREN MAY WELL BE DIGGING HIS OWN GRAVE BY ACCEPTING?

Yeah, well, I'm just in deep depression. Prop 8 took every bit of joy out of election night, for me and for gays in general. All our friends threw a big party, and we had to go to a funeral instead, and nobody sent a sympathy card, and now they're throwing another party that we're not even invited to, although one of the killers is.

Then fight against it, dammit! As the rest of us, including non-gays like myself, is!

I have gay friends, and they partied just like everyone else the night of the election. And I live in Alabama. You know, one of those Southern States.
One of those states where gays just take it for granted nothing will ever get better. Yeah, I wouldn't be upset if I hadn't let myself get suckered into feeling hope.

One of those states where gays just take it for granted nothing will ever get better. Yeah, I wouldn't be upset if I hadn't let myself get suckered into feeling hope.
That attitude is so defeatist that it would be funny, if it weren't so damn sad. Self-pity won't get you very far on the rights front.

That attitude is so defeatist that it would be funny, if it weren't so damn sad. Self-pity won't get you very far on the rights front.Neither will political involvement, apparently.

Neither will political involvement, apparently.

I wonder what would have happened if people like MLK and those who he led had been so defeatist at every setback. Would Brown v. Board have ever been brought before the USSC? Would we have ever seen the Civil Rights Act passed? Would Obama have been elected president this year?

Neither will political involvement, apparently.How long did it take African Americans to gain equal rights in America?
More than two centuries. They didn't give up, did they? No, they didn't. Yet you're ready to give up after, what, a few decades?
No offense meant by this but the quote "Bitch, please" comes to mind.

Neither will political involvement, apparently.

Good. Give up. Leave the fight to real political activists. You're pouting like a little child because everything didn't go exactly your way. Yes, it sucks, but you're going to have to realize that you're not going to affect a culture change overnight. Throwing a fit and giving up doesn't accomplish anything except make you look foolish.

How long did it take African Americans to gain equal rights in America?
More than two centuries. They didn't give up, did they? No, they didn't. Yet you're ready to give up after, what, a few decades?
No offense meant by this but the quote "Bitch, please" comes to mind.I don't have many decades left. I'm old, and I'm tired, and I'm sad.

I wonder what would have happened if people like MLK and those who he led had been so defeatist at every setback. Would Brown v. Board have ever been brought before the USSC? Would we have ever seen the Civil Rights Act passed? Would Obama have been elected president this year?

or worse... if those slaves that dared run from their slave owners gave up after someone first tried to run and got caught?

Good. Give up. Leave the fight to real political activists. You're pouting like a little child because everything didn't go exactly your way. Yes, it sucks, but you're going to have to realize that you're not going to affect a culture change overnight. Throwing a fit and giving up doesn't accomplish anything except make you look foolish.Everything didn't go "exactly" my way??? NOTHING has gone my way. I haven't seen change "overnight"? It's been my life.

I don't have many decades left. I'm old, and I'm tired, and I'm sad.Old enough to know better?

I don't have many decades left. I'm old, and I'm tired, and I'm sad.

Then can I suggest you not to waste time here? These people will not understand your frustration.

Rather than argue about whether Tmutarakhan has a right to be frustrated and self-pitiying, I found this article very interesting, especially where I have added bold.

Rick Warren's biggest critics: other evangelicals (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i4plsiLN50xKMpHQiB5oxcXXVISAD957UB600)
By RACHEL ZOLL – 56 minutes ago

Rick Warren is in a place he never expected to be: at the center of a culture war.

The pastor chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to give the inaugural invocation backed Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in his home state of California. But he did so belatedly, with none of the enthusiasm he brings to fighting AIDS and illiteracy.

When other conservative Christians held stadium rallies and raised tens of millions of dollars for the ballot effort, there was no sign of Warren. Neither he nor his wife, Kay, donated any of their considerable fortune to the campaign, according to public records and the Warrens' spokesman.

In fact, his endorsement seemed calculated for minimal impact. It was announced late on a Friday, just 10 days before Election Day, on a Web site geared for members of his Saddleback Community Church, not the general public.

For gay rights advocates, that strategy was nothing more than an attempt to mask Warren's prejudice. They were outraged that Obama decided last week to give a place of honor to a pastor they consider a general for the Christian right.

Lost in the uproar was the irony of Warren's plight. Ever since he began his climb to prominence in the 1980s, he has battled complaints from fellow evangelicals that he isn't nearly conservative enough.

"The comments from many of the evangelicals further to the right of him are often critical for his lax stance on their passionate issues," said Scott Thumma, a professor at Connecticut's Hartford Seminary who researches megachurches and writes about the challenges for gay and lesbian Christians.

On paper, Warren might look like any other religious traditionalist. He is the son of a Southern Baptist pastor, graduate of a Southern Baptist seminary, and his megachurch in Orange County is part of the conservative denomination.

But Warren holds a different worldview than his roots suggest.

He has spoken out against the use of torture to combat terrorism. He has joined the fight against global warming and, encouraged by his wife, has put his prestige and money behind helping people with AIDS. The Warrens have done so at a time when a notable number of conservative Christians still consider the virus a punishment from God.

"If you want to save a life, I don't care what your background is and I don't care what your political party is," Warren said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. "I think some of these humanitarian issues transcend politics, or ethnic or religious beliefs."

While many religious conservatives openly condemn Islam as inherently evil, Warren reaches out to the American Muslim community. This past Saturday, he gave the keynote address at the convention of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, based in Los Angeles.

"His social consciousness is somewhat left of center, but his theological, ethical stance is right of center," said the Rev. William Leonard, a critic of the Southern Baptist Convention and dean of Wake Forest Divinity School in North Carolina. "That's the thing that makes him potentially a bridge person."

Warren's outlook has come at a price. Many from the Christian right don't trust him.

A registered independent who does not endorse candidates, he has called old guard evangelical activists too partisan and overly focused on gay marriage and abortion.

In the run-up to the Saddleback forum he led last August with Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain, those giving Warren the most grief were conservatives. They were convinced he wouldn't be tough enough on Obama. (Obama wound up stumbling in his appeal to religious voters while answering Warren's question about when a baby gets human rights. Obama said it was "above his pay grade" to respond "with specificity.")

"For probably the last 25 years, evangelicalism became co-opted, and for most people it became a political term," Warren said. "And it got identified with a certain style of political leanings."

The attacks on Warren stretch to how he presents the Gospel — watered-down and soft, according to his theologically traditional critics.

Warren's phenomenal best-seller, "The Purpose Driven Life," which has sold more than 30 million copies worldwide, partly reflects the self-help ethos of baby boomers, although he insists it isn't an advice book and he defends its religious content.

Still, the tone of his writing is deliberate. Warren, 54, is among a generation of pastor-CEOs who use marketing studies, polling and census data to create congregations that will attract people who never go to church. One of Warren's most important mentors was the late Peter Drucker, considered the father of modern management.

Warren started Saddleback with one other family in 1980 in California, a state with one of the lowest percentages of churchgoers in the country. Saddleback now draws more than 22,000 worshippers each week.

As the church grew, so did the critiques. "The pioneers get the arrows," he says.

Warren survives the pounding partly because of his personal integrity. He donates 90 percent of his many millions in book royalties back to the church. He says he stopped taking a salary from Saddleback six years ago. No scandals have tainted his ministry.

He is also one of the savviest leaders among his peers.

His speaking invitations range from church groups to the Davos World Economic Forum and the United Nations. Saddleback's reach is now so broad, it's nearly its own denomination.

Warren provides sermons, study materials and guidance to hundreds of thousands of clergy worldwide through pastors.com and his other Web sites. Warren's "40 Days of Purpose" spiritual campaigns have been conducted in more than 20,000 churches, and he recently joined forces with Reader's Digest to launch a multimedia global juggernaut based on his "Purpose Driven" writing.

Now he is trying to revolutionize faith-based humanitarian work through his P.E.A.C.E. program. It unites local churches, businesses and governments to fight poverty and disease, promote peace, and combat what he calls spiritual emptiness. The pilot project for this effort began in 2005 in Rwanda, which has been dubbed the first "purpose-driven nation."

It is no surprise that he and Obama have become friendly. Each tries to operate outside a strict liberal-conservative divide, and has risked angering his supporters to do so.

"You can't have a reformation without somebody opposing it," Warren says. "If I wasn't making a difference, nobody would be paying attention."

Then can I suggest you not to waste time here? These people will not understand your frustration.

"These people"? Really?

Is that anyone that disagrees with you or Tmutarakhan?

Or is it those that aren't LGBT themselves -- regardless of how hard they work for LGBT rights?

Pissing on those who are sympathetic and believe in the cause is hardly going to help.

Then can I suggest you not to waste time here? These people will not understand your frustration.


:rolleyes: Get over yourself.

Rather than argue about whether Tmutarakhan has a right to be frustrated and self-pitiying, I found this article very interesting, especially where I have added bold.

Rick Warren's biggest critics: other evangelicals (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i4plsiLN50xKMpHQiB5oxcXXVISAD957UB600)
By RACHEL ZOLL – 56 minutes ago

Rick Warren is in a place he never expected to be: at the center of a culture war.

The pastor chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to give the inaugural invocation backed Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in his home state of California. But he did so belatedly, with none of the enthusiasm he brings to fighting AIDS and illiteracy.

When other conservative Christians held stadium rallies and raised tens of millions of dollars for the ballot effort, there was no sign of Warren. Neither he nor his wife, Kay, donated any of their considerable fortune to the campaign, according to public records and the Warrens' spokesman.

In fact, his endorsement seemed calculated for minimal impact. It was announced late on a Friday, just 10 days before Election Day, on a Web site geared for members of his Saddleback Community Church, not the general public.

For gay rights advocates, that strategy was nothing more than an attempt to mask Warren's prejudice. They were outraged that Obama decided last week to give a place of honor to a pastor they consider a general for the Christian right.

Lost in the uproar was the irony of Warren's plight. Ever since he began his climb to prominence in the 1980s, he has battled complaints from fellow evangelicals that he isn't nearly conservative enough.

"The comments from many of the evangelicals further to the right of him are often critical for his lax stance on their passionate issues," said Scott Thumma, a professor at Connecticut's Hartford Seminary who researches megachurches and writes about the challenges for gay and lesbian Christians.

On paper, Warren might look like any other religious traditionalist. He is the son of a Southern Baptist pastor, graduate of a Southern Baptist seminary, and his megachurch in Orange County is part of the conservative denomination.

But Warren holds a different worldview than his roots suggest.

He has spoken out against the use of torture to combat terrorism. He has joined the fight against global warming and, encouraged by his wife, has put his prestige and money behind helping people with AIDS. The Warrens have done so at a time when a notable number of conservative Christians still consider the virus a punishment from God.

"If you want to save a life, I don't care what your background is and I don't care what your political party is," Warren said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. "I think some of these humanitarian issues transcend politics, or ethnic or religious beliefs."

While many religious conservatives openly condemn Islam as inherently evil, Warren reaches out to the American Muslim community. This past Saturday, he gave the keynote address at the convention of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, based in Los Angeles.

"His social consciousness is somewhat left of center, but his theological, ethical stance is right of center," said the Rev. William Leonard, a critic of the Southern Baptist Convention and dean of Wake Forest Divinity School in North Carolina. "That's the thing that makes him potentially a bridge person."

Warren's outlook has come at a price. Many from the Christian right don't trust him.

A registered independent who does not endorse candidates, he has called old guard evangelical activists too partisan and overly focused on gay marriage and abortion.

In the run-up to the Saddleback forum he led last August with Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain, those giving Warren the most grief were conservatives. They were convinced he wouldn't be tough enough on Obama. (Obama wound up stumbling in his appeal to religious voters while answering Warren's question about when a baby gets human rights. Obama said it was "above his pay grade" to respond "with specificity.")

"For probably the last 25 years, evangelicalism became co-opted, and for most people it became a political term," Warren said. "And it got identified with a certain style of political leanings."

The attacks on Warren stretch to how he presents the Gospel — watered-down and soft, according to his theologically traditional critics.

Warren's phenomenal best-seller, "The Purpose Driven Life," which has sold more than 30 million copies worldwide, partly reflects the self-help ethos of baby boomers, although he insists it isn't an advice book and he defends its religious content.

Still, the tone of his writing is deliberate. Warren, 54, is among a generation of pastor-CEOs who use marketing studies, polling and census data to create congregations that will attract people who never go to church. One of Warren's most important mentors was the late Peter Drucker, considered the father of modern management.

Warren started Saddleback with one other family in 1980 in California, a state with one of the lowest percentages of churchgoers in the country. Saddleback now draws more than 22,000 worshippers each week.

As the church grew, so did the critiques. "The pioneers get the arrows," he says.

Warren survives the pounding partly because of his personal integrity. He donates 90 percent of his many millions in book royalties back to the church. He says he stopped taking a salary from Saddleback six years ago. No scandals have tainted his ministry.

He is also one of the savviest leaders among his peers.

His speaking invitations range from church groups to the Davos World Economic Forum and the United Nations. Saddleback's reach is now so broad, it's nearly its own denomination.

Warren provides sermons, study materials and guidance to hundreds of thousands of clergy worldwide through pastors.com and his other Web sites. Warren's "40 Days of Purpose" spiritual campaigns have been conducted in more than 20,000 churches, and he recently joined forces with Reader's Digest to launch a multimedia global juggernaut based on his "Purpose Driven" writing.

Now he is trying to revolutionize faith-based humanitarian work through his P.E.A.C.E. program. It unites local churches, businesses and governments to fight poverty and disease, promote peace, and combat what he calls spiritual emptiness. The pilot project for this effort began in 2005 in Rwanda, which has been dubbed the first "purpose-driven nation."

It is no surprise that he and Obama have become friendly. Each tries to operate outside a strict liberal-conservative divide, and has risked angering his supporters to do so.

"You can't have a reformation without somebody opposing it," Warren says. "If I wasn't making a difference, nobody would be paying attention."

Wow. Excellent article.

*snip*Very interesting.

"These people"? Really?

Is that anyone that disagrees with you or Tmutarakhan?

Or is it those that aren't LGBT themselves -- regardless of how hard they work for LGBT rights?


None of the above. It has nothing to do with LGTB issues actually.

I think Tmutarakhan is getting personal and emotional and certain people are still arguing a debate.

Then can I suggest you not to waste time here? These people will not understand your frustration.:rolleyes:

"These people"? Really?

Is that anyone that disagrees with you or Tmutarakhan?

Or is it those that aren't LGBT themselves -- regardless of how hard they work for LGBT rights?

Pissing on those who are sympathetic and believe in the cause is hardly going to help.TCT said it much better than I could.

Everything didn't go "exactly" my way??? NOTHING has gone my way. I haven't seen change "overnight"? It's been my life.

Okay, now you're just being dramatic. There's a long way to go, for sure, but it's a long way from Stonewall. It's a long way from 'the cure' being the normal approach. There are states that allow gay marriage. There are whole countries that allow gay marriage. There are still outrages like the Prop 8 and similar proposal votes, like Lariame, but there is outrage in the reaction as well. Hell, it's a long way for a president having to address the fact that he invited someone against gay marriage to give a 90 second invocation.

Frankly, the fact that issue is even on the table is the product of miles and miles of progress. Take off the tiara and get back to work.

Everything didn't go "exactly" my way??? NOTHING has gone my way. I haven't seen change "overnight"? It's been my life.

How old are you? Given the fact that you're calling yourself old, it seems fairly obvious that the overall political landscape for the LGBT community has gotten a great deal better over the course of your lifetime.

Is there still a long way to go? Absolutely! Have there been setbacks and even some steps backwards? Unfortunately, yes. But the overall progression has been forwards.

*snip*

So because some of his fellow evangelicals have attacked Rick Warren for not being sufficiently extreme, his homophobia, sexism, and Christian exclusivism is somehow excusable?

Oh, us meanie cultural leftists and "gay rights activists"... so cruelly picking on someone who isn't quite as bigoted as some of his colleagues.

Spare me.

So because some of his fellow evangelicals have attacked Rick Warren for not being sufficiently extreme, his homophobia, sexism, and Christian exclusivism is somehow excusable?

Oh, us meanie cultural leftists and "gay rights activists"... so cruelly picking on someone who isn't quite as bigoted as some of his colleagues.

Spare me.

That isnt what is being said by TCT at all. But I understand how its convenient for you to paint it as such.

That isnt what is being said by TCT at all.

So what is?

That was, after all, pretty much the message of the article he deemed "very interesting."

Spare me.No, please, spare us your complete misread of TCT's post and the article itself. :rolleyes:

So because some of his fellow evangelicals have attacked Rick Warren for not being sufficiently extreme, his homophobia, sexism, and Christian exclusivism is somehow excusable?

Oh, us meanie cultural leftists and "gay rights activists"... so cruelly picking on someone who isn't quite as bigoted as some of his colleagues.

Spare me.

Spare me the deliberate mischaracterization of why I found the article interesting.

Although Rick Warren has said some incredibily ignorant, bigotted, and offensive things about homosexuals, the article clarifies a factual dispute I had earlier with Tmutarakhan about Warren's alleged leadership on Prop. 8.

But return to your world of black and white, good and evil, neatly boxed up into sides with no common ground or respectful disagreement. Nevermind, that is the same attitude that makes the bigots feel morally superior too.

the article clarifies a factual dispute I had earlier with Tmutarakhan about Warren's alleged leadership on Prop. 8.

...which is why you quoted and bolded only those few paragraphs at the beginning, right?

Nevermind, that is the same attitude that makes the bigots feel morally superior too.

Right, because everyone knows context is irrelevant and refusing to seek "common ground or respectful disagreement" is inherently, abstractly bad whatever the issue at hand.

Even if it's whether people are entitled to equal rights and basic respect.

Right, because everyone knows context is irrelevant and refusing to seek "common ground or respectful disagreement" is inherently, abstractly bad whatever the issue at hand.

Even if it's whether people are entitled to equal rights and basic respect.It is, because they have the right to express their opinion on the matter, just like I have the right to express mine. No matter what I think of their opinion.

...which is why you quoted and bolded only those few paragraphs at the beginning, right?

Right, because everyone knows context is irrelevant and refusing to seek "common ground or respectful disagreement" is inherently, abstractly bad whatever the issue at hand.

Even if it's whether people are entitled to equal rights and basic respect.

Thy wrath ... it stings so.

Yes, I admit it. I don't agree that Warren speaking at the inauguration is the end of the world, so I am, by definition, as bigotted as he is. :$

Right, because everyone knows context is irrelevant and refusing to seek "common ground or respectful disagreement" is inherently, abstractly bad whatever the issue at hand.

Even if it's whether people are entitled to equal rights and basic respect.

No one is looking to seek common ground on this particular issue. Instead, they're talking about seeking common ground with people who hold some detestable views.

It is, because they have the right to express their opinion on the matter

...which has absolutely nothing to do with whether we should give them the credibility of "respectful disagreement."

No one is looking to seek common ground on this particular issue. Instead, they're talking about seeking common ground with people who hold some detestable views.

Exactically!!

Old enough to know better?
Old enough to realize that there's no point in waiting for the good part of my life to start: I just have to accept that there isn't going to be a good part.
The pastor chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to give the inaugural invocation backed Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in his home state of California. But he did so belatedly, with none of the enthusiasm he brings to fighting AIDS and illiteracy.

When other conservative Christians held stadium rallies and raised tens of millions of dollars for the ballot effort, there was no sign of Warren. Neither he nor his wife, Kay, donated any of their considerable fortune to the campaign, according to public records and the Warrens' spokesman.

In fact, his endorsement seemed calculated for minimal impact. It was announced late on a Friday, just 10 days before Election Day, on a Web site geared for members of his Saddleback Community Church, not the general public.
This is interesting. What I was hearing trumpeted his endorsement as if Warren was a major player in the Prop 8 fight.
Pissing on those who are sympathetic and believe in the cause is hardly going to help.
I know, from other threads, that you believe in the cause. But you haven't been exactly "sympathetic": you've been among those piling on me telling me how stupid I am to feel punched in the face. Why don't you go here (http://change.gov/page/content/GeneralDiscussion/) and try to talk down all the other people who feel like I do?
Okay, now you're just being dramatic. There's a long way to go, for sure, but it's a long way from Stonewall.
When I said NOTHING went my way, I was referring to Nov. 4 (there was also a local repeal of a nondiscrimination statute, in what had been considered a hip and up-and-coming town). I had thought Obama's win was a big plus, but that turns out not to be the case.
Frankly, the fact that issue is even on the table is the product of miles and miles of progress.
It was "on the table" in 1993, and we just ended up worse off than we were before.
Take off the tiara and get back to work.
I'm just too tired.
Is there still a long way to go? Absolutely! Have there been setbacks and even some steps backwards? Unfortunately, yes. But the overall progression has been forwards.
Not where I live. We've been moving steadily backwards.

I don't agree that Warren speaking at the inauguration is the end of the world, so I am, by definition, as bigotted as he is.

For someone who complains about other people mischaracterizing his views, you seem quite willing to egregiously do the same in response to a post that neither said nor suggested anything of the sort.

Instead, they're talking about seeking common ground with people who hold some detestable views.

So should we go make friends with David Duke because he opposed the Iraq War? Or maybe because he's more moderate than some other white supremacists?

I know--let's have him give a speech at the inauguration!

I don't agree that Warren speaking at the inauguration is the end of the world
I think it's the end of the Obama administration, as far as this issue is concerned. The symbolic gestures made at the inauguration have a good track record as predictors of how the Presidency will go.
Instead, they're talking about seeking common ground with people who hold some detestable views.
No, we're talking HONORING people with detestable views.

And the Potato Boy Blight still runs rampant on NSG.

Jesus Fucking Christ people, let the man spend his actual First Hundred Days in Office before you officially declare his presidency a failure.

:rolleyes:

Not where I live. We've been moving steadily backwards.

Do you live in the Middle East?


So should we go make friends with David Duke because he opposed the Iraq War? Or maybe because he's more moderate than some other white supremacists?

Make friends with him? No. But one might work with him on the issue of the Iraq War, despite his racism.

I know--let's have him give a speech at the inauguration!

If he had actually done a lot of good in other areas and was seen as a major leader by much of the country, I could see it happening.

I wouldn't like it, but I could see it happening.

I know, from other threads, that you believe in the cause. But you haven't been exactly "sympathetic": you've been among those piling on me telling me how stupid I am to feel punched in the face. Why don't you go here (http://change.gov/page/content/GeneralDiscussion/) and try to talk down all the other people who feel like I do?

Did you mean to link a discussion on legalized marijuana?

But one might work with him on the issue of the Iraq War, despite his racism.

Fine. And Obama is welcome to "work with" Rick Warren as much as he likes on the issues where working with him makes sense.

But that is miles apart from giving him a place of honor at the inauguration.

I wouldn't like it, but I could see it happening.

I can't, but in any case it is beside the point: Rick Warren's selection does not surprise me so much as it offends me.

For someone who complains about other people mischaracterizing his views, you seem quite willing to egregiously do the same in response to a post that neither said nor suggested anything of the sort.

Good point.

Of course, you aren't really denying that you (and some others in this thread) have taken a "you either agree with me on everything or you are an enemy" stance. And, although I share a degree of outrage at the selection of Warren, I don't share the same degree of outrage. Hence, I am not sympathetic enough and clearly an enemy.

Did you mean to link a discussion on legalized marijuana?
ifyou click on the last page of that discussion you see that it moves on to rick warren. i didnt bother to look to see where it changed over.

Good point.

Of course, you aren't really denying that you (and some others in this thread) have taken a "you either agree with me on everything or you are an enemy" stance. And, although I share a degree of outrage at the selection of Warren, I don't share the same degree of outrage. Hence, I am not sympathetic enough and clearly an enemy.

It sounds like they're saying you're a gay-hating Republican traitor!

We know that's not true.

When I said NOTHING went my way, I was referring to Nov. 4 (there was also a local repeal of a nondiscrimination statute, in what had been considered a hip and up-and-coming town). I had thought Obama's win was a big plus, but that turns out not to be the case.
You haven't the spine for the fight.

It was "on the table" in 1993, and we just ended up worse off than we were before.
Really? Is gay marriage not recognized in Mass.? Canada? The Netherlands? etc.?

I'm just too tired.
Look dude, you want to throw in the towel, break out the Hagen Das and have a personal pity party, that's cool. But the people I work with and live around, hell-the dudes I'll never meet...just too important to throw in because someone was appointed to give a 90 second prayer. Think how long I have to wait to get a president who accepts public office without a prayer...
I think it's the end of the Obama administration, as far as this issue is concerned. The symbolic gestures made at the inauguration have a good track record as predictors of how the Presidency will go.

Then what about Rev. Joseph Lowery giving the benediction? Or are we only recognizing the symbolism that allows for excuses to cry about the falling sky?

I hope Obama will be forced to cancel many social programs which are just a waste of taxpayers money. And rise taxes for those who REALLY use social services, not for rich people. No gifts for lumpens

Of course, you aren't really denying that you (and some others in this thread) have taken a "you either agree with me on everything or you are an enemy" stance.

I'm sorry my denials have not been thorough enough for you.

I don't think disagreement about Rick Warren makes you (or anyone else) an "enemy." I don't even think Obama's choice of Rick Warren makes him an enemy. I hesitate even to call it a "disappointment", because to the extent I have bought into the Obama myth, I deserve the rude awakening I have received--and that goes for anyone else who should have known better, too.

What bothers me is the lengths people are willing to go to defend Obama's choice--to the point of trying to paint Rick Warren as somehow the "good" kind of bigot. He may be clever enough to paint his ideology in moderate terms; he may be influential enough to have been a leader in numerous charity programs. But neither of those points alter the central elements in the critique of Obama's choice.

I don't think disagreement about Rick Warren makes you (or anyone else) an "enemy." I don't even think Obama's choice of Rick Warren makes him an enemy.

But some people do - and that is the source of disagreement in this thread.

What bothers me is the lengths people are willing to go to defend Obama's choice

Not so much defend. It's more that people are trying to point out the rationale they think Obama had for the choice. If that posited rationale doesn't include a complete lack of interest in (or open hostility towards) LGBT issues, it's somehow seen as "defending" the choice.

Do you live in the Middle East?

Might as well: I live in Michigan.
Did you mean to link a discussion on legalized marijuana?
The transition team rearranges that board every few hours to push the marijuana posts to the top, but the thirty pages are still dominated by Rick Warren.
You haven't the spine for the fight.

I used to, but it was broken.
Really? Is gay marriage not recognized in Mass.? Canada? The Netherlands? etc.?

I was talking about the Presidency of the United States.
Think how long I have to wait to get a president who accepts public office without a prayer...
It won't happen in your lifetime. Get used to it.
Then what about Rev. Joseph Lowery giving the benediction? Or are we only recognizing the symbolism that allows for excuses to cry about the falling sky?
The symbolism of Lowery is that he represents the MLK generation of the black rights movement. That someone won't actually be blocked out from the inaugural for supporting us is very mildly comforting; but none of us will be there.
I hesitate even to call it a "disappointment", because to the extent I have bought into the Obama myth, I deserve the rude awakening I have received--and that goes for anyone else who should have known better, too.

^This

What bothers me is the lengths people are willing to go to defend Obama's choice--to the point of trying to paint Rick Warren as somehow the "good" kind of bigot.

I really dont like using the b-word, but indeed. I kinda tried to explain this b4 but u did a much better job.

Some people write a sentence about that the choice is wrong and then write another 1000 sentences why actualy it isnt that wrong, only a little maybe, how "moderate" Warren actually is etc. Of course some dont even see it as an issue and just think the opposition as going thru childish mantra, crying, whatever. :rolleyes:

I guess, in 2008, in USA, it's still ok for the most part to compare all gays to pedophiles, incestuous/unnatural people, etc since it doesnt invalidate you doing the honour thingie in a presidential ceremony.

And the funny thing it's redundant. Warren could have expressed his religious/anti-gay marriage views w/o being so offensive. But now it's proven that he doesnt need to think about not being so offensive in future, since he is invited to that presidential ceremony.

Not so much defend. It's more that people are trying to point out the rationale they think Obama had for the choice. If that posited rationale doesn't include a complete lack of interest in (or open hostility towards) LGBT issues, it's somehow seen as "defending" the choice.

Or even that it's a bad choice but not the end of the world. Honestly my support for Obama wasn't that he agreed with me and was going to make all the choices I wanted, but rather he was someone you could disagree with. That means that he's going to make decisions I don't like, like Warren, but I don't have to throw in the towel because afterwards I know that Obama is still open to the discussion he started by putting Warren and Lowery on the same stage long after Warren has given his 90 second prayer and is back at Saddleback trying to sort out why the issues most important to him like poverty and disease are being overshadowed by his more radical views and what that should mean for the future of his ministry's message.

But that is miles apart from giving him a place of honor at the inauguration.
I understand your concern -- as a bisexual male, I can't say that I'm very pleased with the public statements Mr. Warren has made about gay marriage, nor am I happy with his support of Proposition 8. Nevertheless, a central theme of Obama's candidacy was that of engagement. Obama pledged to meet and negotiate with political leaders hostile to the United States, and to focus on building a bipartisan and public consensus on the future of our country. Choosing Warren shows that Obama is staying true to this campaign promise, which, in my opinion, showed his wisdom and intelligence more than any other pledge he made or action he has taken throughout his career. The only way that public opinion can be changed about issues such as equal marital rights is by acknowledging and fostering positive relations with those who hold opposing view points. By choosing Warren to speak at the inauguration, Obama signalled to social conservatives that their voices are being heard, thus starting a process where a dialogue can begin between those on the left and those on the right. This is important because the only way that minds can be changed is by having a conversation, and by showing that the two sides value each other; no one ever changed anyone's mind, or at the very least made a good case to those in the middle for one's beliefs, by shutting out opponents. To simply choose people who hold liberal views to speak at the inauguration, and to employ this strategy for future White House relations, would be repeating the same divisive political strategy that has caused so much animosity in this country during Bush's tenure. Even if the country remains ideologically divided in the next four years, at least actions such as this one will make our political arena less hostile and more cordial.

This is important because the only way that minds can be changed is by having a conversation


Funny that. We are having a conversation here for like 20 pages and noone has changed their opinion.

Funny that. We are having a conversation here for like 20 pages and noone has changed their opinion.

Opinion-changing takes time. African-Americans didn't just hold one rally before the Civil Rights Act was signed. The National Woman Suffragette Association was formed in 1869, 60-odd years before the 19th amendment was ratified. Dialogue does not produce instantaneous changes, but over time, it can work wonders.

Opinion-changing takes time. African-Americans didn't just hold one rally before the Civil Rights Act was signed. The National Woman Suffragette Association was formed in 1869, 60-odd years before the 19th amendment was ratified. Dialogue does not produce instantaneous changes, but over time, it can work wonders.

I think thats a generalization. Sometimes dialogue does help but sometimes it doesnt.

In any case, u are repeating points already made in this thread. Not inviting Warren to do the invocation =/= shutting down dialogue w/ religous right.

Noone has said Obama shouldnt talk w/ religous right during all his time in office.

The only way that public opinion can be changed about issues such as equal marital rights is by acknowledging and fostering positive relations with those who hold opposing view points.

This is wishful thinking. You get rid of sentiments like bigotry not by accepting and tolerating them, but by making them no longer respectable: by attaching to them social costs so high that people are no longer willing to harbor such views (or, at least, to express them in public).

When you give people like Rick Warren positions of honor, you send exactly the opposite message: you suggest that as long as you're a "nice" bigot, you're alright.

This is important because the only way that minds can be changed is by having a conversation,

"Having" or not "having" a conversation has nothing to do with it. This is not about conversations, it is about whether blatant, egregious bigots are people to be honored. If someone tells me that the Jews are behind an international banking conspiracy to steal Christian wealth and destroy Western society, I may argue with that person, and I may even argue calmly and rationally--but I would not grant to him or her a symbolic position at a major political event.

In any case, when you pretend that a view as transparently irrational and foundationless as homophobia is somehow credible, you only strengthen its status: you ignore that it is rooted not in rational argument but in various sources of irrational conviction (religion, rigid gender notions).

It is not a view worthy of the respect we ordinarily (and rightfully) grant to opposing positions. It is not a view worthy of an ethically principled democratic society at all.

and by showing that the two sides value each other;

Why should we value the other side? What is there in their position that has value?

To simply choose people who hold liberal views to speak at the inauguration, and to employ this strategy for future White House relations, would be repeating the same divisive political strategy that has caused so much animosity in this country during Bush's tenure.

The issue is not who does and does not "hold liberal views": the issue is people who not only are illiberal but also are severely prejudiced.

African-Americans didn't just hold one rally before the Civil Rights Act was signed.

African-American rallies weren't about conversing with diehard segregationists, either.

African-American rallies weren't about conversing with diehard segregationists, either.

well, a couple of them headed that way...

Might as well: I live in Michigan.

Try GA.

trying to paint Rick Warren as somehow the "good" kind of bigot.

Yeah, I'm not, and I have yet to see a response to the fact that Obama may well be using Warren for Warren's future chagrin. Isn't it possible that Obama is inviting him PRECISELY to backstab him later?

Isn't it possible that Obama is inviting him PRECISELY to backstab him later?

Does it matter?

Obviously it's a politically-motivated move. But it still grants credibility and respectability, and the impression of "moderation", to someone who has actively promoted egregious bigotry.

Does it matter?

Obviously it's a politically-motivated move. But it still grants credibility and respectability, and the impression of "moderation", to someone who has actively promoted egregious bigotry.:rolleyes:
I really get the "with us or against us" type of mentality the more you post about it.

:rolleyes:
I really get the "with us or against us" type of mentality the more you post about it.

:rolleyes:

I'm sorry my denials have not been thorough enough for you.

I don't think disagreement about Rick Warren makes you (or anyone else) an "enemy." I don't even think Obama's choice of Rick Warren makes him an enemy. I hesitate even to call it a "disappointment",
....


Oh and, you, 10 pages ago:

The longer this debate last, the more silly it seems. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:Oh and, you, 10 pages ago:
:rolleyes:We really like rolling our eyes at each other, don't we?

We really like rolling our eyes at each other, don't we?

:rolleyes:

:p

I really get the "with us or against us" type of mentality the more you post about it.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. What exactly about my position amounts to "with us or against us"?

:rolleyes:

:pI walked into that one. :p

I'm not sure what you're talking about.I'm not sure I do, either. I just think that you're turning the selection of a minister/pastor to have a much larger impact than it does, and that Obama's choice is indicative of his all of his future policy decisions about gay rights, and you're ready to debate it to death that it absolutely is just that.

I have a question for you. How do you combat an 'enemy' when he/she has outpost in your head?

As a civil libertarian, I am definitely upset about the fact that an Obama victory in California also resulted in the destruction of gay marriage in that state. African American voters pushed it over the top. Even when gays win, they lose.....I cannot help but feel very sorry for them.

Wow, racism at it's finest. Ever hear of the church of mormon?

Exactly. My enemies are his friends.

He has made no gesture to us at all. He will be friendly toward the religious right, and not toward us. That's the message he sent.

Hey smart one, Joseph lowery is gonna be there as well. have you ever heard keep your friends close and you're enemies closer? Geez people, he's taking his ideas from Abraham lincoln.

George Washington was right when he said that political parties are the beginning of the end of democracy and the rule of law. I think he's right.

I just think that you're turning the selection of a minister/pastor to have a much larger impact than it does,

I don't think I am, because I don't think I've actually said particularly much about the "impact." I've already stated that selecting Warren doesn't absolutely ruin Obama in my eyes, and that it wouldn't even have tainted him had not my expectations and my enthusiasm been irrationally high.

But two additional points are worthy of mention. First, Obama has not said that the selection was politically insignificant--he did not say something to the effect of, "Rick Warren is a friend of mine, and that's why I chose him." He couched his decision explicitly in politically symbolic terms. In this context, you can hardly object to people complaining about its political symbolism.

Second, what angers me even more than the selection itself is the excuses that have been provided for it, by Obama (with his presumption of calling himself a "fierce advocate" for equality prior to having taken any substantive action to that effect) and by his defenders (with their dismissal of the anger and outrage on this subject, which boils down, in the end, to a reluctance to see homophobia, and perhaps sexism also, as just as evil and unacceptable as racism.)

and that Obama's choice is indicative of his all of his future policy decisions about gay rights,

Have I said anything to that effect? Both elsewhere and in this very thread I have noted that Obama's positions on gay rights are broadly positive and progressive, within the scope of American politics as they are.

and you're ready to debate it to death that it absolutely is just that.

Apparently not.

I have a question for you. How do you combat an 'enemy' when he/she has outpost in your head?

Repression and self-control? I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

Hey smart one, Joseph lowery is gonna be there as well.

And a gay marching band! Yay Obama! :rolleyes:

George Washington was right when he said that political parties are the beginning of the end of democracy and the rule of law.

I don't know about the "rule of law", but political parties are pretty crucial to democracy in any real-world application.

In any case, what does this have to do with the thread?

*snip*Alright, then I was operating under the wrong assumption. I was wrong. No harm done. Now I get a chance to re-evaluate what I think, and what you say you think.

\
I know, from other threads, that you believe in the cause. But you haven't been exactly "sympathetic": you've been among those piling on me telling me how stupid I am to feel punched in the face. Why don't you go here (http://change.gov/page/content/GeneralDiscussion/) and try to talk down all the other people who feel like I do?

\.

sympathy works to a point, when paranoia and the delusions of a persecution complex set in "tough love" should be administered.

And a gay marching band! Yay Obama! :rolleyes:




I'll take that to mean that there are not many gay representatives, on the other hand from what i've seen warren is the only one against homosexual behavior in attendance.

I'll take that to mean that there are not many gay representatives

That's not what I mean.

If Obama invited David Duke and some rabbi to prominent positions of honor at his inauguration, would they cancel each other out?

That's not what I mean.

If Obama invited David Duke and some rabbi to prominent positions of honor at his inauguration, would they cancel each other out?

If Obama invited David Duke and Malcom X (I think at least one of those is dead, but anyways), they MIGHT. On account of, y'know, killing each other. :p

That's not what I mean.

If Obama invited David Duke and some rabbi to prominent positions of honor at his inauguration, would they cancel each other out?

To most of the american public, warren is a moderate and therefore not related in any shape or form to either of those people. Politics itself is about compromise, there are a good deal of voters out there that are bitter and angry because they feel betrayed by the election of obama. If they managed to mount an effective propoganda attack against him, it would be a threat to his political position. Obama is merely trying to scoop up some of the last bits of the republican party by signaling a willingness to listen to their needs. He's acting in a word, Lincoln like. It's just like how he's put hilary into his cabinet, remember keep you're friends close and keep you're enemies closer.

To most of the american public, warren is a moderate and therefore not related in any shape or form to either of those people.

So?

Obama is merely trying to scoop up some of the last bits of the republican party by signaling a willingness to listen to their needs.

Again... so? I am not stupid, nor am I politically ignorant. It's quite clear to me why he's doing it. It merely does not alter my judgment: Obama should not be giving honors to bigots for highly questionable and speculative political gain.

He's acting in a word, Lincoln like.

I don't think this comparison has much meaning in this situation.

It's just like how he's put hilary into his cabinet, remember keep you're friends close and keep you're enemies closer.

Clinton is by no means Obama's enemy.

Clinton is by no means Obama's enemy.

She just played one on TV?

Like, really, REALLY well?

She just played one on TV?

Pretty much, yes.

That's sort of how primaries work.

So?

So while morally i disagree with it, i don't think you can really take it to signal somehow that Obama supports this type of biggotry

Again... so? I am not stupid, nor am I politically ignorant. It's quite clear to me why he's doing it. It merely does not alter my judgment: Obama should not be giving honors to bigots for highly questionable and speculative political gain.
Again, you really can't base his future policy decisions on this.
I don't think this comparison has much meaning in this situation.
How so? Lincoln had some people who were sympathetic to the cause of slavery in his cabinet yet he himself ended it.

Clinton is by no means Obama's enemy.
Fierce political opponent then, even now some clinton supporters refuse to suport obama, look at the creator of this thread. You really have to give it to a man who brings in one of his most powerful former political opponents

Again, you really can't base his future policy decisions on this.

Who said you could? Not me.

Lincoln had some people who were sympathetic to the cause of slavery in his cabinet yet he himself ended it.

Lincoln pressed for unity at a time when the country was, quite literally, falling apart.

Fierce political opponent then,

Well, competitor, yes.

Who said you could? Not me.



Lincoln pressed for unity at a time when the country was, quite literally, falling apart.




1. then we're in agreement. some others on this thread have in fact suggested that it does.
2. you don't think our country is in a tight fix now?

Lincoln pressed for unity...

Ah, so when Lincoln ordered Federal troops to hold the Maryland legislature at gunpoint, and force them to vote (at gunpoint) to stay in the Union, he was "pressing for unity"

Ah, so when Lincoln ordered Federal troops to hold the Maryland legislature at gunpoint, and force them to vote (at gunpoint) to stay in the Union, he was "pressing for unity"

while very extreme, yes this is the case.

while very extreme, yes this is the case.

I'm sure that if Bush had done such a thing (force a state legislature to vote his way at gunpoint), you would be up in arms.

I'm sure that if Bush had done such a thing (force a state legislature to vote his way at gunpoint), you would be up in arms.

I'm pretty sure he can't go back in time to give Lincoln a piece of his mind.

And do you REALLY think that creating an environment in which the mantra is "agree with Bush or you're un-American" isn't FORCING people to vote a given way? I'm calling you on this.

Ah, so when Lincoln ordered Federal troops to hold the Maryland legislature at gunpoint, and force them to vote (at gunpoint) to stay in the Union, he was "pressing for unity"

I would ask if you always ignored context and relevance in making your arguments, but I think I already know the answer.

I'm sure that if Bush had done such a thing (force a state legislature to vote his way at gunpoint), you would be up in arms.

When the United states is being divided into a real physical civil war and the opposing army is posed to take our capitol with a powerful army and the only way to safely secure our capitol is for this state to vote a certain way then no, I would not be "up in arms". Besides, i consider seccessation from the union never to have had any merit, anger at a presidents policies of overseas exploitation are fairly legitamate. My favorite type of people are those that support the confederacy and turn right around and say god bless the USA

I'm sure that if Bush had done such a thing (force a state legislature to vote his way at gunpoint), you would be up in arms.

Depends on it was to prevent civil war or not. But I shouldnt pretend like you pay attention to logic or context when making your "arguements".

Try GA.
The laws in Michigan are significantly more regressive than those in Georgia, or any other state in the union
You haven't the spine for the fight.
I suppose I should give you a fuller explanation.

My weariness with fighting the system started to take hold in 1999-2000, during a case where prosecutors were keeping a boy in the house of his abusers to coerce testimony out of him. Matt was being forcibly sodomized and beaten with a baseball bat to the point where once he had to go to the hospital to have his ruptured spleen removed, in order to "beat the faggot out of him" as his mother's boyfriend put it. The parents accused uncle Mike of abusing Matt, as a defense against Mike's efforts to get Matt removed from the house, and the prosecutor and judge went along, since they were from a local Christian/Republican machine called the Traditional Values Coalition and Mike was active in the gay-rights movement. The trial was a travesty in many ways, but the worst was when Mike's friend tried to testify about who was really abusing the boy and the reports made to the FIA (Family Independence Agency, the child protective services): the FIA perjured themselves, denying that any calls whatsoever had ever been made to them about Matt. I knew this was a lie since I had made two calls myself: when the judge would do nothing, I sent a description of the case and my phone records demonstrating the perjury to the state attorney general, Jennifer Granholm, since she was responsible for abuses by prosecutors (especially) and other state agencies.

I spent months driving across the state every week, two hours each way, to visit Mike in prison, and try to talk him out of his certainty that he would die there (he was correct), until a bishop from a breakaway Catholic sect took over the role. Until you have done such a thing, DON'T talk down to me about how little "spine" I have. I leafletted every corner of the whole county. And for a year I kept fighting with the AG's office, which went from non-responsive to thoroughly hostile. I heard indirectly that Matt had finally been beaten to death, but I could not even get the AG to confirm for me whether or not that was true; and then I heard that Mike died. I continued volunteering at the Triangle Foundation, but just doing non-strenuous things like stuffing envelopes, until 2002 when I broke with them over their endorsement of Jennifer Granholm for governor.

I could not believe that that bitch was actually posing as the "gay-friendly" candidate. I told them about my experiences with her, and that they were selling their souls for nothing backing her. She has been useless on many fronts, but none more so than on our issues. We cannot even get a bill to make schools treat queer-baiting as "bullying" rather than as protected religious speech (it is called "Matt's bill", after a different Matt who was driven to suicide). In 2004 I went back to Triangle to work against Prop 2, which amended the constitution to ban, not just same-sex marriage, but anything "similar" to marriage: in Michigan, uniquely, it is impossible to "imitate" marriage by wills, trusts, contracts, etc. which will all be voided on grounds of "similarity" to marriage. Ohio and Virginia have had initiatives putting the same language in their constitutions, but Ohio's supreme court has rejected the Michigan interpretation and Virginia's is still pondering it. Michigan's court was split 4-3 in favor of the Christian Republicans: one rare thing that did go my way this Nov. 4 was that the Chief Justice (who wrote an especially nasty opinion in a case from the Kalamazoo public schools, striking down joint health insurance not only for the teacher's partner but also for the special-needs children they were raising) was defeated, although by an unknown who might literally do anything (she won by a fluke, scoring a big hit with a commercial where a litigant complained about the Chief Justice falling asleep on the bench).

Granholm was supposedly against Prop 2, but somehow never got around to issuing a statement about it or lifting a finger (she does issue friendly proclamations to be read at Pride Fests, and shows up at fundraisers; that's it). I spent all election day in 2004 standing outside a polling place in chilly drizzle, handing out No on 2 literature and talking to anybody who would listen; I was sick for a week, and it was all for nothing of course. When the Republicans sued to strike down joint health insurance on Prop 2 grounds, Granholm was quick to help, abolishing joint health insurance for state employees by executive order. I swore I would never get involved in an election campaign again. But, I did suckered into knocking on doors for Obama, who looks like he is going to be a Granholm.
I'll take that to mean that there are not any gay representatives
Fixed
So while morally i disagree with it, i don't think you can really take it to signal somehow that Obama supports this type of biggotry
Giving Warren a place of honor IS an act of support.

Again, you really can't base his future policy decisions on this.
Symbolic gestures at the inauguration have in the past been reliable indicators of how a Presidency is going to go.
you don't think our country is in a tight fix now?
Yes I do. And I think one of the main problems in the country is the style of "politics by vilification", which Obama was supposedly going to stop, but instead he indicates that those who practice vilification will continue to be respectable in his administration, at least as long as the vilification is directed against us.

And a gay marching band! Yay Obama! :rolleyes:



I don't know about the "rule of law", but political parties are pretty crucial to democracy in any real-world application.

In any case, what does this have to do with the thread?

Take a look at the thread, pal. It is a comparison of sorts between democrat and republican, both of which are real-world travesties to the democratic process. Study the US Constitution. Show me, if you would be so kind, where the founding fathers brought political parties into the process.

Take a look at the thread, pal. It is a comparison of sorts between democrat and republican, both of which are real-world travesties to the democratic process. Study the US Constitution. Show me, if you would be so kind, where the founding fathers brought political parties into the process.

Federalist vs Anti-Federalist.

And before you talk about the Founding Fathers being anti-political parties, they were, but it was essentially "Im anti-political parties, I just think everyone should agree with me!"

Besides, political parties are covered under the first ammendment, with that whole "Freedom of Assembly" thing.

Take a look at the thread, pal. It is a comparison of sorts between democrat and republican, both of which are real-world travesties to the democratic process. Study the US Constitution. Show me, if you would be so kind, where the founding fathers brought political parties into the process.

I love the "Founders didn't believe in or anticipate parties" argument.

First, the Founders started the party system.

Second, have you read The Federalist Papers (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html)? Your premise that the Founders did not know of and anticipate political parties (and/or that such parties ruin the Founder's design) is simply not true. I direct you in particular to Federalist No. 10 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.html) and its discussion of factions.

Symbolic gestures at the inauguration have in the past been reliable indicators of how a Presidency is going to go.

Yes I do. And I think one of the main problems in the country is the style of "politics by vilification", which Obama was supposedly going to stop, but instead he indicates that those who practice vilification will continue to be respectable in his administration, at least as long as the vilification is directed against us.
I'd really like to see the symbolic gestures you're refering to for past presidents.
or it could just be that he agrees with his stances against aids and poverty but you keep on believing that he's just slighting you for fun. It couldn't be for political reasons, such that he was trying to stop a potential propaganda war spreading from his former political rivals. Remember that while the republicans look down and out now, the democrats were in the same position in 2000 and 2004. He's trying to draw in the remaining moderate republican voters who feel cheated by the election of obama and truly believe he's a socialist. Again, Abraham lincoln had slavery sympathetic cabinet members but he still got rid of slavery and yet you're judging him for something that hasn't even taken place during his admnistration, as if to say that nothing he will do as president will ever support my group because of one person he gave a special position for one day, that is pure paronia and speculation on your part and i hope you don't live your life like that. I do apologize for the fact that it is probably the oppressive landscape around you that has helped to cement these very dangerous view points, but i suggest looking at this objectively and not trying to see demons where there are none because this is begining sound a lot like right wingers labeling obama a socialist because he disagrees with their views.

Melissa Etheridge: The Choice Is Ours Now (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-etheridge/the-choice-is-ours-now_b_152947.html)

This is a message for my brothers and sisters who have fought so long and so hard for gay rights and liberty. We have spent a long time climbing up this mountain, looking at the impossible, changing a thousand year-old paradigm. We have asked for the right to love the human of our choice, and to be protected equally under the laws of this great country. The road at times has been so bloody, and so horrible, and so disheartening. From being blamed for 9/11 and Katrina, to hateful crimes committed against us, we are battle weary. We watched as our nation took a step in the right direction, against all odds and elected Barack Obama as our next leader. Then we were jerked back into the last century as we watched our rights taken away by prop 8 in California. Still sore and angry we felt another slap in the face as the man we helped get elected seemingly invited a gay-hater to address the world at his inauguration.

I hadn't heard of Pastor Rick Warren before all of this. When I heard the news, in its neat little sound bite form that we are so accustomed to, it painted the picture for me. This Pastor Rick must surely be one hate spouting, money grabbing, bad hair televangelist like all the others. He probably has his own gay little secret bathroom stall somewhere, you know. One more hater working up his congregation to hate the gays, comparing us to pedophiles and those who commit incest, blah blah blah. Same 'ole thing. Would I be boycotting the inauguration? Would we be marching again?

Well, I have to tell you my friends, the universe has a sense of humor and indeed works in mysterious ways. As I was winding down the promotion for my Christmas album I had one more stop last night. I'd agreed to play a song I'd written with my friend Salman Ahmed, a Sufi Muslim from Pakistan. The song is called "Ring The Bells," and it's a call for peace and unity in our world. We were going to perform our song for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a group of Muslim Americans that tries to raise awareness in this country, and the world, about the majority of good, loving, Muslims. I was honored, considering some in the Muslim religion consider singing to be against God, while other Muslim countries have harsh penalties, even death for homosexuals. I felt it was a very brave gesture for them to make. I received a call the day before to inform me of the keynote speaker that night... Pastor Rick Warren. I was stunned. My fight or flight instinct took over, should I cancel? Then a calm voice inside me said, "Are you really about peace or not?"

I told my manager to reach out to Pastor Warren and say "In the spirit of unity I would like to talk to him." They gave him my phone number. On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn't sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids. He told me of his wife's struggle with breast cancer just a year before mine.

When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future.

Brothers and sisters the choice is ours now. We have the world's attention. We have the capability to create change, awesome change in this world, but before we change minds we must change hearts. Sure, there are plenty of hateful people who will always hold on to their bigotry like a child to a blanket. But there are also good people out there, Christian and otherwise that are beginning to listen. They don't hate us, they fear change. Maybe in our anger, as we consider marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands. Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en mass and volunteer for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world.

Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us.

I know, call me a dreamer, but I feel a new era is upon us.

I will be attending the inauguration with my family, and with hope in my heart. I know we are headed in the direction of marriage equality and equal protection for all families.

Happy Holidays my friends and a Happy New Year to you.

Peace on earth, goodwill toward all men and women... and everyone in-between.


My kidding in the title aside, I don't think this is relevant just because Etheridge is a lesbian and an activist, but I think her conclusions about Warren after meeting him are interesting.

Yes, I know being a transvestite/transsexual does not mean you're a homosexual. I just liked this article, so I thought I'd share it since it seems related in a global perspective kind of way.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12564128

"IN A cramped makeshift theatre in Istanbul, a Kurd in a purple dress titillates the audience with the story of how he was born a man but found he was a woman. During her act, Esmeray wields a sharp tongue to expose the systematic violence faced by fellow transvestites. “I am a Kurd, a transvestite and a feminist, so I am screwed all round,” she says.

Human-rights groups say hundreds of transvestites are detained, beaten, tortured or sexually abused every year. Many are driven into prostitution. “They are seen as the lowest of the low and face more police brutality than any other group,” says Eren Keskin, a human-rights lawyer. And when anyone has dared to file a complaint, she adds, “not a single policeman has been convicted.”

Turkey is said to have more transvestites per head than anywhere bar Brazil. Fascination with cross-dressing dates to Ottoman times, when winsome boys dressed as girls would belly-dance for the sultan. But, just as tolerance of Christians and Kurds withered under Ataturk’s republic, so it did for transvestites and gays. The success of a few transvestite singers disguises the “general acceptance in Turkish society that we are freaks,” says Funda, a transvestite dancer.

Same-sex relations are not banned in Turkey. But like America, it bans gays and cross-dressing men from the army. Yet to win exemption from mandatory military service, they must prove their sexual orientation. A Human Rights Watch report notes that this can involve “abusive and intrusive anal examinations”, and adds that many are forced into psychiatric treatment because they are deemed to be mentally ill.

Such abuses have drawn rebukes from the European Union. Emboldened by EU-inspired reforms, gays are starting to speak up. In June Istanbul hosted the country’s biggest gay pride parade, with hundreds of unfazed riot police looking on. The parade featured veiled transvestites protesting against the ban on Islamic-style headscarves at universities. A vocal band of pious women is now fighting discrimination against cross-dressing compatriots. This alliance is just one example of Turkey’s unusual mix of Islam and democracy.

The government is not so liberal. The interior ministry is said to be behind efforts to disband Lambda, an advocacy outfit, because it is sowing immoral values. An Istanbul court has ruled against Lambda, which is now appealing. And Esmeray is battling against two policemen who allegedly punched and kicked her as she was walking home in June 2007. The men are to appear in court next March on charges of causing her bodily harm. “Justice is slow, but it will come,” she vows."

I'd really like to see the symbolic gestures you're refering to for past presidents.
January 20, 2001 for example: Billy Graham was too ill to reprise the "invocation" one more time, so Bush tapped Franklin Graham, noted for warning us often (frequently in ugly tones) that the US needs to confront radical Islam; the text of Bush's speech (to be sure, the President's own speech is much more important than the various sideshows, and I have promised to listen to Obama very very carefully before I repudiate him) was all about maintaining the courage of his convictions, and not compromising his principles for political reasons; the wrapup benediction by Rev. Campbell told us that real Americans are the ones who worship Jesus.
I watched that inauguration and immediately knew, WE'RE FUCKED.
you keep on believing that he's just slighting you for fun.
Oh, certainly not "for fun". Probably it arises out of the usual impossibility of keeping all campaign promises, and having to calculate what things to sacrifice to get other parts of the agenda: this signals to the right that Obama does want co-operation on the environment and assistance to the poor, and if they give him that then they have permission to scuttle gay-rights bills to have some victories to show their constituents. The other possibility, as suggested by Dempublicents and others, is that he just wasn't thinking about us at all: this is consistent with his generally-observed reluctance on the campaign to mention our issues any more often than he could help it, the absence of our issues from the initial release of his agenda on change.gov, and our absence from any of his appointments or choices for the inaugural state.
But whether it is thinly veiled hostility, or simply utter indifference, it looks to me very much like Granholm (whom I see at Obama's side often), leading me to expect occasional friendly words from him, not accompanied by any substantive actions.
I do apologize for the fact that it is probably the oppressive landscape around you that has helped to cement these very dangerous view points
I know what politicians who talk nice and don't do shit look like. I've been burned before, and I'm kicking myself for letting myself get burned again.

Blatant opposing political views within a group = Ramones!

It's good.

Study the US Constitution. Show me, if you would be so kind, where the founding fathers brought political parties into the process.

Do you have any idea how many of our political traditions--including some of the earliest and most fundamental--are not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution?

I think her conclusions about Warren after meeting him are interesting.

I don't believe it's in question that Rick Warren is the "soft" kind of bigot: he's no Fred Phelps, he isn't ranting about how God hates gays and Matthew Shepard deserved to have been murdered. His level of vitriol isn't even on the level of, say, Jerry Falwell. But the fact that he can put his bigoted views in terms that have mainstream acceptability, that he can posture very well at tolerance, ultimately proves very little about his moral decency or his acceptability as an inauguration speaker.

He claims to believe in "equal rights", yet he supported Proposition 8 and opposes even civil unions (this has been misreported--his version of "equal rights" applies apparently only to "civil rights", which in his view does not include marriage or relationship recognition. (http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/12/rick-warrens-controversial-com.html))

He suggests, according to Ms. Etheridge, that he regrets comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and incest, yet he does so yet again in the interview I have just linked to, and when asked if he thinks they are equivalent to same-sex marriage, he expresses agreement.

His condemnation of divorce is disingenuous: he advocates banning same-sex marriage, but has he ever advocated banning divorce? Rhetorical flourishes are very convenient, but if he really wants us to see him as some kind of champion of moderation, why doesn't he actually abide by his own standards?

As for tolerance broadly, from back in March: "Dr 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. (http://allafrica.com/stories/200803281265.html)"

White supremacists, too, have lately been couching their bigotry in (relatively) pleasant terms: they aren't "racists" anymore, they just believe in white heritage and national determination. We don't fall for this, because we know better: at the core it's the same bigotry, and the presentational changes are just attempts to make it more palatable. Let's not fall for the same trick here.

Hilary clinton is evil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111

January 20, 2001 for example: Billy Graham was too ill to reprise the "invocation" one more time, so Bush tapped Franklin Graham, noted for warning us often (frequently in ugly tones) that the US needs to confront radical Islam; the text of Bush's speech (to be sure, the President's own speech is much more important than the various sideshows, and I have promised to listen to Obama very very carefully before I repudiate him) was all about maintaining the courage of his convictions, and not compromising his principles for political reasons; the wrapup benediction by Rev. Campbell told us that real Americans are the ones who worship Jesus.
I watched that inauguration and immediately knew, WE'RE FUCKED..
Comparing Obama to bush is a very big stretch.
Oh, certainly not "for fun". Probably it arises out of the usual impossibility of keeping all campaign promises, and having to calculate what things to sacrifice to get other parts of the agenda: this signals to the right that Obama does want co-operation on the environment and assistance to the poor, and if they give him that then they have permission to scuttle gay-rights bills to have some victories to show their constituents. The other possibility, as suggested by Dempublicents and others, is that he just wasn't thinking about us at all: this is consistent with his generally-observed reluctance on the campaign to mention our issues any more often than he could help it, the absence of our issues from the initial release of his agenda on change.gov, and our absence from any of his appointments or choices for the inaugural state.
Again, you have no idea what he's intentions are. You should read the article cat tribe posted, because your whole if your not with me your against me schpiel is getting old and sounding a lot like the people you oppose. You don't seem to grasp the concept of politics, just because he's giving someone a symbolic gesture can in no way determine the type of policies that he plans to uphold. Bill clinton had his ceremony presided over by William Rehnquist, the man who opposed equal rights for women and african americans. His policies, at least to my knowledge, were not aggressively against blacks and women.
But whether it is thinly veiled hostility, or simply utter indifference, it looks to me very much like Granholm (whom I see at Obama's side often), leading me to expect occasional friendly words from him, not accompanied by any substantive actions.
Or it could just be that he's letting Moderate republicans know they will have a voice countering a potential propaganda war against his administration but you keep thinking that this is just a way for him to signal everything he's going to do in his administration.
I know what politicians who talk nice and don't do shit look like. I've been burned before, and I'm kicking myself for letting myself get burned again
Unfortunately, politics is not like war. In order to get things done you can't say that if you're not with me you're against me because even with a majority it is still a game of compromise. While Obama is most likely going to support gay rights he has to give a little in the sense showing that moderate republicans still have a voice in their government, no majority can overrule this fact.

In 2004 I went back to Triangle to work against Prop 2, which amended the constitution to ban, not just same-sex marriage, but anything "similar" to marriage: in Michigan, uniquely, it is impossible to "imitate" marriage by wills, trusts, contracts, etc. which will all be voided on grounds of "similarity" to marriage. Ohio and Virginia have had initiatives putting the same language in their constitutions, but Ohio's supreme court has rejected the Michigan interpretation and Virginia's is still pondering it.

GA has similar language as well. To my knowledge, a challenge of this sort hasn't come up yet.

Giving Warren a place of honor IS an act of support.

But cannot be assumed to be support for each and every one of Warren's viewpoints.

He claims to believe in "equal rights", yet he supported Proposition 8 and opposes even civil unions (this has been misreported--his version of "equal rights" applies apparently only to "civil rights", which in his view does not include marriage or relationship recognition. (http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/12/rick-warrens-controversial-com.html))

He suggests, according to Ms. Etheridge, that he regrets comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and incest, yet he does so yet again in the interview I have just linked to, and when asked if he thinks they are equivalent to same-sex marriage, he expresses agreement.

His condemnation of divorce is disingenuous: he advocates banning same-sex marriage, but has he ever advocated banning divorce? Rhetorical flourishes are very convenient, but if he really wants us to see him as some kind of champion of moderation, why doesn't he actually abide by his own standards?

As for tolerance broadly, from back in March: "Dr 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. (http://allafrica.com/stories/200803281265.html)"


*sigh*

I'm done arguing with you about whether "a bigot is a bigot is a bigot" and no bigot should ever be tolerated under any circumstances.

I do find the first article you linked interesting in that -- despite your exegesis to the contrary-- it is hardly as offensive his comments as they have been taken out of context :

The following is the controversial portion of the interview with Rick Warren focused on gay marriage, civil unions and divorce. In brackets are clarifications that Warren asked to include after reading a transcript of the original interview:

BELIEFNET: Which do you think is a greater threat to the American family - divorce or gay marriage?

WARREN: [laughs] That's a no brainer. Divorce. There's no doubt about it.

Here's an interesting thing. The divorce statistics are quite bandied around. People say half the marriages end in divorce. That's just not true. 40% of first time marriages end in divorce. About 61% of second time marriages end in divorce and 75% of third time marriages end in divorce. So the odds get worse and what's balancing this out...when you hear 50% end in divorce, that's just not true. The majority of marriages do last....

BELIEFNET: So why do we hear so much more - especially from religious conservatives - about gay marriage than about divorce?

Oh we always love to talk about other sins more than ours. Why do we hear more about drug use than about being overweight? Why do we hear more about anything else than about wasting time or gossip? We want to point that my sins are perfectly acceptable. Your sins are hideous and evil.

BELIEFNET: One controversial moment for you in the last election was your support for proposition 8 in California. ... Just to clarify, do you support civil unions or domestic partnerships?

WARREN: I don't know if I'd use the term there but I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don't believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles so I fully support equal rights.

[Clarification from Pastor Warren 12/15: I now see you asked about civil UNIONS -and I responded by talking about civil RIGHTS. Sorry. They are two different issues. No American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period. But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the "right" to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage. It's just not there. ]

BELIEFNET: What about partnership benefits in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?

WARREN: You know, not a problem with me.

[Clarification from Pastor Warren 12/15: I favor anyone being able to make anyone else the beneficiary of their health or life insurance coverage. If I am willing to pay for it, I should be able to put a friend, partner, relative, or stranger on my coverage. No one should be turned away from seeing a friend in the hospital. But visiting rights are a non-issue in California! Since 1999, California has had a domestic partnership law that grants gay couples visiting rights and all the other rights. Prop 8 had no -zero -effect on those rights.]

The issue to me, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

BELIEFNET: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

Oh , I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion - this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews - historically, marriage is a man and a woman. And the reason I supported Proposition 8, is really a free speech issue. Because first the court overrode the will of the people, but second there were all kinds of threats that if that did not pass then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn't think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships, and that would be hate speech. We should have freedom of speech, ok? And you should be able to have freedom of speech to make your position and I should be able to have freedom of speech to make my position, and can't we do this in a civil way.

Most people know I have many gay friends. I've eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of Purpose Driven Life helping people who got AIDS through gay relationships. So they can't accuse me of homophobia. I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage.

[Clarification/addition from Pastor Warren 12:15:

BOTTOM LINE:

1. God, who always acts out of love and does what is best for us, thought up sex. Sex was God's idea, not ours. Like fire, and many other things God gave us, sex can be used for good, or abused in ways that harm. The Designer of sex has clearly and repeatedly said that he created sex exclusively for husbands and wives in marriage. Whenever God's parameters are violated, it causes broken hearts, broken families, emotional hurt and shame, painful memories, and many other destructive consequences. There would be so STDs in our world if we all played by the rules.


2. God gives me the free choice to follow his commands or willfully disobey them so I must allow others to have that same free choice. Loving, trusting, and obeying God cannot be forced. In America, people already have the civil right to live as they wish.


3. If anyone, whether unfaithful spouses, or unmarried couples, or homosexuals or anyone else think they are smarter than God and chooses to disobey God's sexual instructions, it is not the US government's role to take away their choice. But neither is it the government's role to classify just any "loving" relationship as a marriage. A committed boyfriend-girlfriend relationship is not a marriage. Two lovers living together is a not a marriage. Incest is not marriage. A domestic partnership or even a civil union is still not marriage.


4. Much of this debate is not really about civil rights, but a desire for approval. The fact that 70% of blacks supported Prop 8 shows they don't believe it is a civil rights issue. Gays in California already have their rights. What they desire is approval and validation from those who disagree with them, and they are willing to force it by law if necessary. Any disapproval is quickly labeled "hate speech. Imagine if we held that standard in every other disagreement Americans have? There would be no free speech. That's why, on the traditional marriage side, many saw Prop 8 as a free speech issue: Don't force me to validate a lifestyle I disagree with. It is not the same as marriage." And many saw the Teacher's Union contribution of $3 million against Prop 8, as a effort to insure that children would be taught to approve what most parents disapprove of.]

Rick Warren to be main speaker at Ebenezer on King Day (http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/12/23/rick_warren_king_day.html)

The Rev. Rick Warren will be the featured speaker at the Martin Luther King Jr. Commemorative Service in Atlanta the day before he gives the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration.

The 10 a.m. service at Ebenezer Baptist Church on Jan. 19 is the highlight of nearly more than a week of events to fete Atlanta’s famous son.
*snip*

FWIW, apparently Melissa Etheridge, myself, and others in this thread are not the only one's that think Rev. Warren should be shunned. The King Center has long and loudly supported LGBT rights, but I guess this is a "sign" they are abandoning that cause.

I'm done arguing with you about whether "a bigot is a bigot is a bigot" and no bigot should ever be tolerated under any circumstances.

You never really started, so I suppose you might as well stop. Mostly you have been accusing me of mischaracterizing your views.

Though I do wonder why, if your only point is that I am too outraged, you so repeatedly feel the need to mount a defense of Warren. Your position starts becoming absurd when, despite claiming to oppose his selection and finding his views to be detestable, you spend so much time and effort attempting to characterize him as a moderate, a good bigot who apparently we should all... what? Support? Embrace? Respect? Not be offended by?

What are you trying to prove?

it is hardly as offensive his comments as they have been taken out of context :

Really?

"I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

BELIEFNET: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

Oh , I do."

Do explain exactly what about the context makes this somehow more palatable to you... perhaps you think disgusting homophobia is better if it is founded in tradition? Or is it its accompaniment by (ridiculously stupid) appeals to free speech? Or maybe it's that the homophobe in question has (claims to have) gay friends? Or that he oh-so-generously thinks that people in same-sex relationships shouldn't be denied the rights of complete strangers?

Perhaps there's another "factual dispute" at issue here that you're secretly trying to illuminate, and you don't actually mean much of anything at all?

:rolleyes:

FWIW, apparently Melissa Etheridge, myself, and others in this thread are not the only one's that think Rev. Warren should be shunned.

Wow, shocking, some people agree with you. Wouldn't have guessed that. You can add Andrew Sullivan to your "token gay" list--don't forget to be nice and advocate "freedom" rather than "power."

Of course, you know, the the real players in gay politics--HRC, NGLTF, political leaders like Barnie Frank--have come out against it, as well as several straight "allies" who have a long record of genuine, substantive support (e.g. John Bryson Chane), but I suppose their views are irrelevant as long as you can list some for your column.

Oh, but I forgot--you're actually opposed to the selection, right? So when you say you don't think that "Rev. Warren should be shunned", you aren't actually talking about the inauguration, but rather about... what, exactly?

Do you actually have a point?

You never really started, so I suppose you might as well stop. Mostly you have been accusing me of mischaracterizing your views.

Though I do wonder why, if your only point is that I am too outraged, you so repeatedly feel the need to mount a defense of Warren. Your position starts becoming absurd when, despite claiming to oppose his selection and finding his views to be detestable, you spend so much time and effort attempting to characterize him as a moderate, a good bigot who apparently we should all... what? Support? Embrace? Respect? Not be offended by?

What are you trying to prove?



Really?

"I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

BELIEFNET: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

Oh , I do."

Do explain exactly what about the context makes this somehow more palatable to you... perhaps you think disgusting homophobia is better if it is founded in tradition? Or is it its accompaniment by (ridiculously stupid) appeals to free speech? Or maybe it's that the homophobe in question has (claims to have) gay friends? Or that he oh-so-generously thinks that people in same-sex relationships shouldn't be denied the rights of complete strangers?

Perhaps there's another "factual dispute" at issue here that you're secretly trying to illuminate, and you don't actually mean much of anything at all?

:rolleyes:

Wow, shocking, some people agree with you. Wouldn't have guessed that. You can add Andrew Sullivan to your "token gay" list--don't forget to be nice and advocate "freedom" rather than "power."

Of course, you know, the the real players in gay politics--HRC, NGLTF, political leaders like Barnie Frank--have come out against it, as well as several straight "allies" who have a long record of genuine, substantive support (e.g. John Bryson Chane), but I suppose their views are irrelevant as long as you can list some for your column.

Oh, but I forgot--you're actually opposed to the selection, right? So when you say you don't think that "Rev. Warren should be shunned", you aren't actually talking about the inauguration, but rather about... what, exactly?

Do you actually have a point?

Meh.

First, this is not just a discussion between you and I, but a discussion on a public forum in which others have also opined about how terrible having Rev. Warren speak for 90 seconds at the inaugaration. I share a complete outrage at Rev. Warren's beliefs and even share a certain degree of outrage at his choice by Obama.

But, some pretty extraordinary claims have been made by you and others about how this is a "sign" or "indicator" of the "reality" of the Obama Administration. Or a "rude awakening' deserved by you --and "anyone else who should have known better, too."

Second, just as you claim to be object to the "dismissal of the anger and outrage on this subject, which boils down, in the end, to a reluctance to see homophobia, and perhaps sexism also, as just as evil and unacceptable as racism," I am objecting to the hyperbole that compares any defense of Obama's selection as less than apocalyptic is homophobic and sexist. Many in this thread have claimed that those of us that don't completely agree with hysteria about Rev. Warren's invocation can't understand or a somehow less committed to LGBT rights than you and Tmutarakhan. The fact that more than a few "token" LGBT and civil rights activists don't share your outrage is relevant. Unless Melissa Ethridge, the King Center, Andrew Sullivan, etc., are all really homophobes and sexists.

Third, as I keep trying to point out, one can find Rev. Warren's beliefs on some issues utterly destestable without hating the man and everything he believes in. Several people in this thread have exaggerated Rev. Warren's alleged evil. Rebutting that is not endorsing a "good" bigot, but merely respecting truth.

But, some pretty extraordinary claims have been made by you and others about how this is a "sign" or "indicator" of the "reality" of the Obama Administration.

Well, it is, and I don't think that's a particularly "extraordinary" claim to make--Obama's own statements on the subject are pretty explicit about how that's exactly what he wants it to be.

That does not mean that I think Obama's choice proves that he will not support gay rights. You appear to be conflating the two. I hold by the first but not by the second: I see no convincing reason to believe that Obama will fail to back gay rights, though I am (and was long before this Rick Warren matter) somewhat concerned that he might fail to allocate much political capital to it.

Or a "rude awakening' deserved by you --and "anyone else who should have known better, too."

Do you mean to pretend that choosing a homophobic preacher to appear more attractive to right-wing evangelical Christians is not, well, "politics as usual"--in its logic if not necessarily in its means?

Actually, it's more than "politics as usual"--it well exemplifies also the double standard mainstream society has toward different forms of bigotry. It's "tolerance as usual", too: let's be nice to homophobic bigots, especially religious ones, and criticize the people who are so aggressive and partisan as to hesitate to embrace them.

Yes, I guess I found that disappointing.

I am objecting to the hyperbole that compares any defense of Obama's selection as less than apocalyptic is homophobic and sexist. Many in this thread have claimed that those of us that don't completely agree with hysteria about Rev. Warren's invocation can't understand or a somehow less committed to LGBT rights than you and Tmutarakhan.

The stance itself says nothing about anyone's commitment to LGBT rights. I mean, there's a case for his selection in the framework of cold political logic: I might object to it, but certainly that's not a failure of commitment.

I stand by my earlier statement, though. It's not the stance that's the issue, it's the reasoning that sometimes behind it, and the double standard at play.

The fact that more than a few "token" LGBT and civil rights activists don't share your outrage is relevant. Unless Melissa Ethridge, the King Center, Andrew Sullivan, etc., are all really homophobes and sexists.

Who said they were? Who said you were?

But you're still missing the point. Are Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell proof positive that the mainstream opposition to affirmative action has nothing to do with racism?

Rebutting that is not endorsing a "good" bigot, but merely respecting truth.

Yes, but then it would be nice if you actually targeted specific claims you were refuting out of intellectual honesty, instead of referencing articles you find "very interesting" or non-specific "context" that somehow alters the plain meaning of his words.

Instead, you seem to be indulging in an old sophist's trick: you speak vaguely or hyperbolically about how Rick Warren or Obama's choice really isn't so bad, and when called on it your lack of clarify allows you to conveniently fall back to your position of "I'm (a little) outraged, too."

At the least, that's how (intentionally or unintentionally) you're coming across. It's like NMG said: when you write one sentence about how you're actually opposed to the decision and then ten about how it really isn't so bad, it's kind of hard not to see any subtext there.

I think her conclusions about Warren after meeting him are interesting.
Warren is a smarmy git who plays the "some of my friends" card often, and is pleased to be able to do so with a celebrity. He apologized for the pedophilia comparison as if it were a one-time mis-speak, instead of one of his favorite go-to lines, but did not apologize for pressuring gay teens into "aversion therapy" designed to make them sexually dysfunctional for life (he is explicit that neutering us is precisely what he wants done), or for urging African countries to keep their laws that imprison gays. If he were really repentant about the hurt he inflicts on us, he would have a lot more back-pedalling to do, but instead responded only to the line Melissa had heard of.
Melissa is a sweetheart, who wants to see the good in people, but all I get out of this article is that she was suckered.
Comparing Obama to bush is a very big stretch.
I was only comparing them in that they are recent examples of Presidents: you wanted to see justification for my claim that as the symbolic gestures in the inauguration go, so does the Presidency. For more positive examples, note that the most replayed clips from FDR ("the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself") and JFK ("ask not what your country can do for you") were from their famously tone-setting inaugurals.
Again, you have no idea what he's intentions are.
That's his choice. Apparently he is going to let this poisonous gesture hang out there for a month, with no clarification except his far-from-reassuring statement, referring back to his so-far-slim past record and calling his "disagreements" with Warren just another example of how wonderful "diversity" is.
Bill clinton had his ceremony presided over by William Rehnquist
Clinton did not choose Rehnquist for Chief Justice. NERVUN pointed out before that the President doesn't "have to" be sworn in by the Chief Justice, but since every President since Washington except Coolidge (caught by surprise on vacation in rural Vermont, without quick train connections back to DC, for continuity's sake Coolidge chose to be sworn in immediately by his father-in-law, a justice of the peace) has done so, it would have been an extraordinarily strong signal to snub the Chief Justice, practically a declaration of war on the Supreme Court: no, I wouldn't read anything into Obama's failure to snub Chief Justice Roberts; it would have been very unusual for Obama to give even a second's thought to that.
What were the chosen symbolic gestures at Clinton's inaugural? A mixed bag of very muddled messages, and that too I would say was a good indicator of what kind of Presidency it was going to be.
even with a majority it is still a game of compromise. While Obama is most likely going to support gay rights he has to give a little in the sense showing that moderate republicans still have a voice in their government, no majority can overrule this fact.
He will have to give on some issues, to get co-operation on others. It sounds like gay rights are the issue he is going to give on: maybe he will have bills in our favor introduced, and let the Republicans quash them without much fuss, to give them cover for not fighting him on other things.
GA has similar language as well. To my knowledge, a challenge of this sort hasn't come up yet.
Not just banning marriage, but anything "similar to" marriage? That's language you can drive a truck through. Can you check? If so, when was that language put in?
But cannot be assumed to be support for each and every one of Warren's viewpoints.
It is giving him more power, to push for each and every one of his viewpoints.
The King Center has long and loudly supported LGBT rights, but I guess this is a "sign" they are abandoning that cause.
Or at least softening on it. This is exactly the kind of expanded reach for Warren that I was afraid of. Oh, the King Center says, Obama thinks he's an OK guy, so let's give him our platform too.

Y'know, Soheran and Tmutarakhan, you both have good points.
And, after reading most of your post, and the post of those who you're responding to, I'm still not worried about the selection of an Rev. Warren to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration.

I was only comparing them in that they are recent examples of Presidents: you wanted to see justification for my claim that as the symbolic gestures in the inauguration go, so does the Presidency. For more positive examples, note that the most replayed clips from FDR ("the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself") and JFK ("ask not what your country can do for you") were from their famously tone-setting inaugurals.


You want to know whats different about those two examples?

The president said them. Not some guy who spoke at their inaugeration.

You want to know whats different about those two examples?

The president said them. Not some guy who spoke at their inaugeration.

Of course. That's why I went first with the Bush inaugural, where the choice of preachers was of some import. Billy Graham at Clinton's inaugurals was just a go-with-the-flow choice, since he'd been doing it for a while.
I don't know who preached at FDR's, that was a little before my time. JFK had Cardinal Spellman, and while he had made a point of saying during the West Virginia primary that he was not going to take directions from the Vatican, as people feared a Catholic President would do, it was important that he show he was not ashamed of being Catholic, as sticking with a Protestant would have done.

Y'know, Soheran and Tmutarakhan, you both have good points.
And, after reading most of your post, and the post of those who you're responding to, I'm still not worried about the selection of an Rev. Warren to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration.Unless you're gay, you don't have any reason to be worried about it. But it's not really your place to tell us how we should feel.

Unless you're gay, you don't have any reason to be worried about it. But it's not really your place to tell us how we should feel.I didn't say anything about how you should feel. I said that you both have good points, but I still see no reason to worry about it.

Do you mean to pretend that choosing a homophobic preacher to appear more attractive to right-wing evangelical Christians is not, well, "politics as usual"--in its logic if not necessarily in its means?






There are times when the philosophy of the ends justifying the means is a neccessary one if only to get things done. If the majority of obama's actions begin to just become one giant means to an end that's when i'll stop supporting him, say if he compromises his actions rather than some gesture towards a man who has also worked to end poverty and disease.

Of course. That's why I went first with the Bush inaugural, where the choice of preachers was of some import. Billy Graham at Clinton's inaugurals was just a go-with-the-flow choice, since he'd been doing it for a while.
I don't know who preached at FDR's, that was a little before my time. JFK had Cardinal Spellman, and while he had made a point of saying during the West Virginia primary that he was not going to take directions from the Vatican, as people feared a Catholic President would do, it was important that he show he was not ashamed of being Catholic, as sticking with a Protestant would have done.

While those arguments are very interesting unto themselves, the only president mentioned thus far who's inaguration ceremony is of any comparable degree to the hypothetical situation that you've pointed out is george bush, who inacted real policy decisions that affected that group. Besides, the message he could be sending is that moderate republicans will have a voice in their government rather than being an excluded minority which is how the bush administration treated the democratics during it's rein of terror. How many times has the man said he is against partisan politics?

That's his choice. Apparently he is going to let this poisonous gesture hang out there for a month, with no clarification except his far-from-reassuring statement, referring back to his so-far-slim past record and calling his "disagreements" with Warren just another example of how wonderful "diversity" is.



If you're not willing to at least listen to someone with a differing view point and try to find things in common with them you've doomed yourself failure in the world of politics. This is not a rule obama has made up, this is the iron law of Democracy and a republican system.

the message he could be sending is that moderate republicans will have a voice

Republicans who are moderate on every issue except gay rights, where they are vitriolically opposed, will have a voice in the government.
How many times has the man said he is against partisan politics?
He used to be against the "politics of vilification" too. He has carved out an except, for vilification directed against us.
If you're not willing to at least listen to someone with a differing view point and try to find things in common with them
Whether I am a child molestor who should be neutered or imprisoned is not just an issue where someone might have a "differing viewpoint" that I can find something in common with.

Whether I am a child molestor who should be neutered or imprisoned is not just an issue where someone might have a "differing viewpoint" that I can find something in common with.

1. Just for clarification, did Rev. Warren actually say you were a child molestor? Or that you should be neutered? Or imprisoned?

Please provide a source for these allegations.

2. No one is asking you to find common ground on the issue of LGBT rights, but on other issues where you and Rev. Warren agree (such as treatment for AIDS) -- despite his abhorrent views about LGBTs.

Who said they were? Who said you were?

Let's see, you said the position of posters like me "boils down, in the end, to a reluctance to see homophobia, and perhaps sexism also, as just as evil and unacceptable as racism." I guess that doesn't necessarily call me a homophobe or sexist, just someone that isn't as opposed to homophobia or sexism as I should be. :eek:

Second, what angers me even more than the selection itself is the excuses that have been provided for it, by Obama (with his presumption of calling himself a "fierce advocate" for equality prior to having taken any substantive action to that effect) and by his defenders (with their dismissal of the anger and outrage on this subject, which boils down, in the end, to a reluctance to see homophobia, and perhaps sexism also, as just as evil and unacceptable as racism.)
(emphasis added)

Instead, you seem to be indulging in an old sophist's trick: you speak vaguely or hyperbolically about how Rick Warren or Obama's choice really isn't so bad, and when called on it your lack of clarify allows you to conveniently fall back to your position of "I'm (a little) outraged, too."

At the least, that's how (intentionally or unintentionally) you're coming across. It's like NMG said: when you write one sentence about how you're actually opposed to the decision and then ten about how it really isn't so bad, it's kind of hard not to see any subtext there.

What "subtext"? That I'm a homophobe or sexist? Or that I am not sufficiently opposed to homophobia or sexism?

Or maybe a more reasonable interpretation of my posts is that I am offended by the selection of Rev. Warren -- BUT I (1) understand it, (2) agree in part with the principal behind it, (3) think some of you are overreacting to it, and (4) am opposed to lies and slander -- even against someone with views with which I strongly disagree.

According to the video (clip of Rachel Maddow Show in MSNBC) in this link, besides his anti-gay stuff, Warren also believes wives should be subject to their husbands and abuse isnt a reason for divorce.

He also said something like his critics are Christophobes.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Maddow_Rick_Warren_confuses_himself_with_1224.html

He also said something like his critics are Christophobes.Some nonsense about how his critics fear all Christians. Christophobia is what he called it.

Republicans who are moderate on every issue except gay rights, where they are vitriolically opposed, will have a voice in the government.
Most moderate republicans are in fact like that, that's a good portion of american voters who disagree with obama's positions. He's trying to show that they have common ground and will be able to have a voice in their government and not be punished for their positions like Bush did to the democrats during his administration.

He used to be against the "politics of vilification" too. He has carved out an except, for vilification directed against us.
Because of course he's saying he agrees with every position this man has ever taken. He couldn't just be agreeing with his work to end poverty and AIDS, no he has to be straight up biggot for doing this.
Whether I am a child molestor who should be neutered or imprisoned is not just an issue where someone might have a "differing viewpoint" that I can find something in common with.

I don't remember him ever mentioning that gays should be neutered or imprisoned but if you have some information suggesting this, feel free to provide it.

Okay, since the debate is going NOWHERE, as both sides rehash the same arguments over and over again, I just wanted to say:

HAPPY HOLIDAYS, EVERYONE!!!

The King Center has long and loudly supported LGBT rights, but I guess this is a "sign" they are abandoning that cause.Or at least softening on it. This is exactly the kind of expanded reach for Warren that I was afraid of. Oh, the King Center says, Obama thinks he's an OK guy, so let's give him our platform too.

Except it was last May when Rev. Warren was chosen to be the King Day speaker for 2009. linky (http://www.ajc.com/gwinnett/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/12/23/rick_warren_king_day.html)

Also, I look at Rick Warren's more recent statements with a hope he is at least trying to distancing himself from homophobia (and, by that, I don't mean he isn't still a homophobe, but that perhaps this controversy is causing him to at least publicly moderate his views (wishful thinking, I know)):

Rick Warren: Not anti-gay to oppose gay marriage (http://www.ajc.com/gwinnett/content/shared-gen/ap/Religion_Columns/Inauguration_Warren.html?cxntlid=inform_artr)
By RACHEL ZOLL
AP Religion Writer

Pastor Rick Warren, chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to pray at his inauguration, said in a video message to his church that he doesn't equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but opposes redefining marriage just as any conservative Christian would.

Warren said that disagreeing with gay-rights activists on same-sex marriage does not qualify as hate speech and doesn't mean he is anti-gay. He said Obama chose him to give the invocation at the swearing-in to show that people with different views don't have to demonize each other.

"We're both willing to be criticized in order to try to bring America into a new day of civil discourse and to create a new model that says you don't have to agree only with your side on everything," Warren said in the video posted Monday night by Saddleback Community Church.

Gay-rights advocates were enraged that Obama had given the evangelical clergyman a prominent role at the Jan. 20 inauguration. Obama said he wanted the event to reflect diverse views and insisted he remains a "fierce advocate" of equal rights for gays.

Warren had backed Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in his home state of California, where he founded Saddleback. He had recently said that he opposed any redefinition of marriage, including a brother marrying a sister, or an adult marrying a child.

In his video, he insisted he wasn't equating gay marriage with incest or child molestation.

"I have in no way ever taught that homosexuality is the same thing as a forced relationship between an adult and a child, or between siblings," Warren said. "I was trying to point out I'm not opposed to gays having their partnership. I'm opposed to gays using the term marriage for their relationship."

On the other hand, the last few paragraphs of this story are naseauting:

On Tuesday, the church replaced a brief article on the Bible and homosexuality with an audio message on Saddlebackfamily.com to better explain the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, according to Larry Ross, a Warren spokesman.

Anyone can attend Saddleback worship services. But the church article had said that gays "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members.

Saddleback members must sign a broadly worded covenant in which they agree to follow Bible teachings. While gay relationships aren't mentioned in the pledge, it is meant to cover the spectrum of conservative Christian belief.

Okay, since the debate is going NOWHERE, as both sides rehash the same arguments over and over again,

How is this different than usual for NSG? :p

I just wanted to say:

HAPPY HOLIDAYS, EVERYONE!!!

Agreed. :D

With extra cheer for those I've pissed off in this thread. :fluffle:

How is this different than usual for NSG? :p

Touché.

Also, I look at Rick Warren's more recent statements with a hope he is at least trying to distancing himself from homophobia (and, by that, I don't mean he isn't still a homophobe, but that perhaps this controversy is causing him to at least publicly moderate his views (wishful thinking, I know)):

Yeah, he isn't going to all of a sudden not be a homophobe anymore. I agree with you there.

I mean, are there any non-homophobic religions besides Zen Buddhism? The Christians deprive homosexuals of rights. The Muslims hang their homosexuals (at least in countries that practice Sharia, such as Iran).

And some Buddhists are guilty of homophobia. Not Zen Buddhists, of course, but the more traditional Buddhists: Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, for instance. The Buddha said "Do not engage in sexual misconduct." Was he talking not only about rape, incest and etc, but also about homosexuality? The Dalai Lama thinks so.

Oh well. The Evolutionary Bell Curve is still proceeding, and some people are farther along on it than others.

No one is asking you to find common ground on the issue of LGBT rights, but on other issues where you and Rev. Warren agree (such as treatment for AIDS) -- despite his abhorrent views about LGBTs.
Warren's interest in AIDS patients is limited to "keeping them alive long enough to bring them to Christ (http://www.miketidmus.com/blog/2008/12/22/rick-warren-and-aids/)". He fights against condom distribution and sex education on grounds that the only solution to AIDS is convincing people to stop having sex. He is ignorant that in Africa, AIDS has always been predominately spread by heterosexuality, and therefore thinks that part of the solution is to keep the laws criminalizing homosexuality there; he also endorses figures who want to go further, like Ssemba in Uganda (wants to make it criminal to SPEAK against anti-gay criminal statutes) and Akinola of Nigeria (wants to make it criminal for known homosexuals to "meet": apparently two of us can't even have a cup of coffee; also known for advocating schism in the Anglican community on the gay issue, and advocating the extermination of Muslims, running a militia which is known for bashing Muslim babies' skulls against rocks, based on an Old Testament verse).
No, I don't have "common grounds" with this man there, either.
Most moderate republicans are in fact like that
NO.
Okay, since the debate is going NOWHERE, as both sides rehash the same arguments over and over again, I just wanted to say:

HAPPY HOLIDAYS, EVERYONE!!!
No chance of that, but thanks for the wish.

No chance of that, but thanks for the wish.

It is time for this battle to end.

Do you think Warren will begin thinking or acting more like Obama now that he accepted an invitation to speak there?

No?

Then why do you think Obama will begin thinking or acting more like Warren for making it?

I would love to see Warren's face under our boots. I really would. But there's no evidence at all that inviting him to speak means Obama will do ANYTHING against gays. As far as we know, Obama may be perfectly well USING Warren in a maneuver to portray those to the right as unwilling to work on the issue, thus clearing the way for better legislation on the rights I agree you should have, against the wishes of those on the right (after all, "we tried to reach a compromise" and "they would have none of it" so "we had the right to move on it anyways".). I have more evidence of that than you have that Obama will become a devotee of Warren, namely the fact that Obama's PR team is EXCELLENT and the fact that Obama does NOT have Warren's views.

But there's no evidence at all that inviting him to speak means Obama will do ANYTHING against gays.
He won't do anything for us, either.
namely the fact that Obama's PR team is EXCELLENT
That's why, if the impression has been put out there, and is allowed to stay hanging out there, that Obama has abandoned the gay community completely, I assume that is intentional.
and the fact that Obama does NOT have Warren's views.
He doesn't really care much one way or another.

He won't do anything for us, either.

And I should believe one way or another based entirely on your assumptions because...? The man has yet to set foot in office, and here you are talking as if he allowed Texas to set up concentration camps for gays.

That's why, if the impression has been put out there, and is allowed to stay hanging out there, that Obama has abandoned the gay community completely, I assume that is intentional.

Please. Know who you're dealing with. I'm a translator, and I graduated at Language and Literature. I deal with texts and their interpretation for a living. Linguistics 101 says that the meaning of a message is decided just as much by its receiver, its interpreter. Your choice of interpretation is YOURS. YOU are choosing to interpret a speaker choice like Tommy DeVito. The choice of what to interpret is YOURS. And yet, it may well be intentional too. Mainly because impressions are NOT what policy is made of, and, for all we know, he may well ignore Warren completely beyond asking him to speak - and quite frankly I believe that's exactly what will happen.

He doesn't really care much one way or another.

...because if he cared he'd find a way to have Warren executed? Or what? Get real! I hate Warren, too, but he unfortunately exists, and, regarding "dealing with him on a federal policy level", he has to be dealt with - and it sure as hell won't be through simply ignoring him, because, in that case, he WON'T go away. It shouldn't be, and I'm pretty sure it WON'T be, through letting him have any input whatsoever in Obama's decision-making either.

The fact remains that Warren is a force (for ill, but a force) that has to be dealt with, not made concessions to regarding gay rights, which letting him make a speech DOES NOT amount to, but not ignored, because THE WORLD IS NOT A SIMPLE THING.

NO.



What exactly do you mean? How do you think prop 8 got passed in the first place? There has to be at least a sizeable population who are against gay rights or it never could've gotten passed. Your argument is increasingly sounding like paranoid delusions, and more of a "it's not that way because i say so" debating style.

The man has yet to set foot in office
I've said I won't scrape the Obama sticker off my car until after he's been inaugurated. It's just that right now the sign does not look good.
Linguistics 101 says that the meaning of a message is decided just as much by its receiver, its interpreter.
The message is also being received by our profoundest enemies, quotes from whom I am cycling through my signature. They are getting the same signal I am. If Obama does not intend to be emboldening them, then it is past time he sent some countervailing message.
for all we know, he may well ignore Warren completely beyond asking him to speak
He could have just ignored Warren after NOT asking him to speak. What was his purpose in asking this bastard to speak in the first place?
...because if he cared he'd find a way to have Warren executed?
If he cared how we felt, he wouldn't have kicked us when we were down. He did not have to do ANYTHING with Warren.
regarding "dealing with him on a federal policy level", he has to be dealt with
No. He really didn't need to be dealt with, any more than the KKK does.
The fact remains that Warren is a force (for ill, but a force) that has to be dealt with
By honoring him, and increasing his power?
What exactly do you mean? How do you think prop 8 got passed in the first place?
I do not believe that all the 52% who voted for prop 8 think we are the same as pedophiles and need to be imprisoned or neutered; those who think like Warren are not the "moderates", they are the "extremists".
Among that 52% are 8% who voted for it then but would not do so now, because they feel they were lied to: about how 1st-graders would have to be indoctrinated into homosexuality, or how churches would be forced to conduct same-sex weddings whether they liked it or not, or all the other crap they were fed. There is an unknown number who believed those lies and still do, and voted for it only on those grounds. There are those who oppose using the "marriage" word but, unlike Warren, would favor "civil union" or "domestic partnership" or some other such legal recognition of same-sex couples. Those who agree with Warren are the group that there is no hope of finding any common ground with.

I don't see what the problem is, so he's an social archconservative preacher, Obama, could have made much worse choices. For instance he could have had Pat Robertson or Jerry Ferwell doing it. Kind of hard to have Falwell do it.

He's too busy in hell.

Most people are bleating sheep looking for a good bleat to mimic. But like slinkies, I can't help but giggle when one of them tumbles down stairs. :)
True.
------
And people ranting about this need to realize, if Obama threw his support behind Homosexuals, any chance of getting ANYTHING done in the next few years will be sabatoged by Republicans screaming about the "GAY AGENDA!!111!"

The message is also being received by our profoundest enemies, quotes from whom I am cycling through my signature. They are getting the same signal I am. If Obama does not intend to be emboldening them, then it is past time he sent some countervailing message.


The quotes I've seen in your signature seem to be complaining about homosexuals having too much influence/too many rights and/or generally bashing homosexuality. Perhaps I missed the one saying "Yeah, now we know Obama hates gays too."

The message is also being received by our profoundest enemies, quotes from whom I am cycling through my signature. They are getting the same signal I am. If Obama does not intend to be emboldening them, then it is past time he sent some countervailing message.

Let me make a sentence with the exact same components I bolded:

"By speaking out against the war in Iraq, the message is also being received by our profoundest enemies. It is emboldening them. We shouldn't question the War. It's unpatriotic to do so. It emboldens our enemies, who are getting the message as well."

Congratulations. You are now officially speaking like a Republican. In 2004, no less.

(1) understand it, (2) agree in part with the principal behind it, (3) think some of you are overreacting to it, and


Are you older than like 30 btw?

He won't do anything for us, either.


Of course he wont...He's the President...Not a Governor, or Mayor, Or State Congressmen....

Its not a federal Subject....Its a State Matter, California and Massachusetts shouldve shown you that...

Are you older than like 30 btw?

Yes. I am 39. Although I fail to see how that is relevant.

Let me make a sentence with the exact same components I bolded:

"By speaking out against the war in Iraq, the message is also being received by our profoundest enemies. It is emboldening them. We shouldn't question the War. It's unpatriotic to do so. It emboldens our enemies, who are getting the message as well."
This isn't an issue of free speech or tolerance; don't try to make it so.

This is an issue of inviting an apparently homophobic and misogynistic person to preside over a section of a ceremony; no matter how unimportant the section is.

You realize not compromising tends to hurt the Democratic platform more than compromising does?

Admittedly, Warren shouldn't have been picked for this, but I can see why he was, and after all, it's only a speech.

If not compromising is so hurtful, why'd we have so many setbacks for progressive values during the Clinton administration, why was Clinton impeached (it is, after all, a political punishment, not a legal one, and technically he did not commit perjury), and why did Gore "lose" the 2000 election? (We can thank the Supreme Court for that one--don't even start in on me about Nader.) When does the GOP ever compromise with us? When do they ever give us one inch whatsoever in any direction unless it involves us bent over a barrel?

Centrists have been saying this for thirty damn years now. "Oh, we've got to be NICE. Politics is all about COMPROMISE. Wah wah wah." It hasn't gotten us anything except the rise of the Religious Reich and one step forward, two steps back on everything we claim is important to us.

When you're done doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results you be sure to let me know, mmkay? Meanwhile, I do not have Obama on my conscience. I'm glad we had the historic moment of electing an African-American President and I think he is in a position to do at least some good for the country, but I voted for McKinney.

And until the Democratic Party gets its collective head out of its collective butt, I am voting for any Greens on the ballot from here on out. My preference goes like this: Greens --> Democrats --> Libertarians --> Republicans. If the Dems want me to put them first, they need to start putting me and this country first.

Not that I think Clinton would have been a great alternative. She's too centrist for my tastes as well. But I hated the way she was railroaded during the primary and I hate the way the entire country, including far too many "liberal" men, feel free to make her the target of all its pent-up sexism. And they say we don't need feminism anymore. Do tell...

This isn't an issue of free speech or tolerance; don't try to make it so.

This is an issue of inviting an apparently homophobic and misogynistic person to preside over a section of a ceremony; no matter how unimportant the section is.

Verbal assault is not free speech, as far as I'm concerned. And I have no reason to tolerate a hateful man.

The ONE thing Warren has going for him is that he cares about social justice issues more than he does about the traditional hot buttons of homosexuality and abortion. But that's not saying much, given what he's said about the latter.

This isn't an issue of free speech or tolerance; don't try to make it so.

I'm not making the issue one about free speech. I'm showing that the rhetoric here is JUST LIKE Bush's campaign. I seem to recall a commercial in which they showed footage of Kerry voicing his opinion against the war and a picture of a soldier watching.

Centrists have been saying this for thirty damn years now. "Oh, we've got to be NICE. Politics is all about COMPROMISE. Wah wah wah."

Listen carefully: I am NOT a centrist. I do NOT propose compromise with Warren. What I DO suggest Obama's trying to do is a gesture FOR SHOW, with the hidden purpose of WEAKENING Warren on this issue by making WARREN seem uncompromising. It's what I've been saying since the beginning, it's IN PART what others have been saying since the beginning, and we have, throughout this thread, been treated as if we were proposing to let Warren dictate terms on policy. We are not, Obama is not, and, hell, WARREN HIMSELF is currently not.

I repeat: I would LOVE to see Warren's face under my boot - forever. I really would. And I don't think Obama's compromising on ANYTHING except on "who gives a speech during a dinner". It's not different from letting a cousin you hate propose a toast during your wedding in the hopes of getting your side of the family that's against it to shut up. You won't let the cousin, OR the family dictate the rules on your house. You'll get a drunken moron to speak some gibberish there, and then you'll turn to the family and say "see, I let him speak, now shut up and let me fuck my wife". (Or my husband, regardless of the difference or similarity in genders involved).

Yes. I am 39. Although I fail to see how that is relevant.

There are large differences between different demographic groups when it comes to gay issues.


I repeat: I would LOVE to see Warren's face under my boot - forever.

Chill.

Chill.

And...

IRONY.

Okay, okay, all chill.

Not that I think anyone is actually getting overheated yet. This has been a remarkably seemly debate, all things considered. Let's keep it that way.

If not compromising is so hurtful, why'd we have so many setbacks for progressive values during the Clinton administration, why was Clinton impeached (it is, after all, a political punishment, not a legal one, and technically he did not commit perjury), and why did Gore "lose" the 2000 election? (We can thank the Supreme Court for that one--don't even start in on me about Nader.) When does the GOP ever compromise with us? When do they ever give us one inch whatsoever in any direction unless it involves us bent over a barrel?

Centrists have been saying this for thirty damn years now. "Oh, we've got to be NICE. Politics is all about COMPROMISE. Wah wah wah." It hasn't gotten us anything except the rise of the Religious Reich and one step forward, two steps back on everything we claim is important to us.

When you're done doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results you be sure to let me know, mmkay? Meanwhile, I do not have Obama on my conscience. I'm glad we had the historic moment of electing an African-American President and I think he is in a position to do at least some good for the country, but I voted for McKinney.

And until the Democratic Party gets its collective head out of its collective butt, I am voting for any Greens on the ballot from here on out. My preference goes like this: Greens --> Democrats --> Libertarians --> Republicans. If the Dems want me to put them first, they need to start putting me and this country first.

Not that I think Clinton would have been a great alternative. She's too centrist for my tastes as well. But I hated the way she was railroaded during the primary and I hate the way the entire country, including far too many "liberal" men, feel free to make her the target of all its pent-up sexism. And they say we don't need feminism anymore. Do tell...

YOu'll never get anything done with that attitude, Bush tried to do the same exact thing, no compromises with the left and he ruined his party's name for the next 20 years or so. Clinton wasn't able to do anything because he was a liberal president in an atmosphere of conservatism. Check who was in congress those years he was in office. Bush rode on the fact that he had a conservative majority, what he didnt' count on was that his contiuos focus on conservative policy not only alienated the left, which he didn't care about, but ultimately led to a humilating defeat for his party. Btw, you've only managed to provide the negatives of compromise, you've failed to provide any positives of not compromising, real world situations would be nice.

I do not believe that all the 52% who voted for prop 8 think we are the same as pedophiles and need to be imprisoned or neutered; those who think like Warren are not the "moderates", they are the "extremists".
Among that 52% are 8% who voted for it then but would not do so now, because they feel they were lied to: about how 1st-graders would have to be indoctrinated into homosexuality, or how churches would be forced to conduct same-sex weddings whether they liked it or not, or all the other crap they were fed. There is an unknown number who believed those lies and still do, and voted for it only on those grounds. There are those who oppose using the "marriage" word but, unlike Warren, would favor "civil union" or "domestic partnership" or some other such legal recognition of same-sex couples. Those who agree with Warren are the group that there is no hope of finding any common ground with.

It couldn't just be some christians who like his purpose driven life book and it couldn't be they agree with...
Warren's five-point plan for global action, the P.E.A.C.E. plan, calls for church-led efforts to tackle global poverty and disease, including the spread of HIV/AIDS, and to support literacy and education efforts around the world. In February 2006, he signed a controversial statement backing a major initiative to combat global warming, thus breaking with other conservative, high-profile evangelical leaders, such as James Dobson, who had opposed such a move. Polls have indicated that most evangelicals are skeptical of global warming theories, especially related to human culpability. This decision by Warren remains one of his most controversial and criticized moves.
Warren has been invited to speak at national and international forums including the United Nations, the World Economic Forum in Davos, the African Union, the Council on Foreign Relations, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, TED, and Time’s Global Health Summit. He was named one of "America's Top 25 Leaders" in the October 31, 2005, issue of U.S. News and World Report.[4] Warren was elected by TIME magazine as one of 15 World Leaders Who Mattered Most in 2004 and one of the "100 Most Influential People in the World" (2005).[5] Newsweek magazine called him one of "15 People Who Make America Great", an award given to people who, through bravery or generosity, genius or passion, devote themselves to helping others.[6]

But like i said, it has to be his views on homosexuality that are singled out.

There are large differences between different demographic groups when it comes to gay issues.

So am I too young or too old to hate Warren sufficiently and/or bail on Obama?

So am I too young or too old to hate Warren sufficiently and/or bail on Obama?Abandoning ship after one possibly bad decision? ...Why? o_0;

So am I too young or too old to hate Warren sufficiently and/or bail on Obama?

Abandoning ship after one possibly bad decision? ...Why? o_0;

NSG seems to be having a rampant bout of PotatoBoyitis. Symptoms include anger at compromise or opening up dialogue with the opposition, and looking for any pretense to call Obama a failed President even before he's sworn into office.

The quotes I've seen in your signature seem to be complaining about homosexuals having too much influence/too many rights
No: they were saying that Obama's choice of Warren (every quote was from a thread about Warren) proved that we would NEVER have rights or influence.
Perhaps I missed the one saying "Yeah, now we know Obama hates gays too."
You missed "Fags thought they were going to be elected Obama's first ladies..."? I left that one up a long time. Never mind, I'll find another one.
Of course he wont...He's the President...Not a Governor, or Mayor, Or State Congressmen....

Its not a federal Subject....Its a State Matter, California and Massachusetts shouldve shown you that...
Federal law trumps state. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would end, at one stroke, the need to fight state by state and town by town for the right to keep our jobs and stay in our apartments.
And likewise, a marriage in one state ought to be, not only a marriage for federal purposes such as taxes, Social Security, and ERISA (pension guarantees), but also a marriage in EVERY state (my parents were married in Michigan but soon moved to Indiana, and OF COURSE they were legally married in Indiana, that goes without saying for everyone except us). The Constitution has a clause requiring every state to give Full Faith and Credit to the birth, marriage, death, and criminal records of every other state: for example, Alan Keyes sued the California Secretary of State to have Obama removed from the ballot on grounds that his Hawaiian birth certificate was a forgery and he's not really a citizen, but California is not permitted to disbelieve the records of Hawaii. Unfortunately there is also a provision that Congress can regulate "the manner in which such records are to be proven": until recently, this only came up in extradition law, where federal law can dictate how one state shows another that so-and-so is wanted; but Clinton signed a "Defense of Marriage Act" allowing states to disregard marriages from other states (in our case only, of course). I am dubious of the constitutionality of DOMA (but even more dubious about how the Roberts Court would rule), but just repealing it would pretty much end this whole fight.
I seem to recall a commercial in which they showed footage of Kerry voicing his opinion against the war and a picture of a soldier watching.
And did Kerry promise to invite Osama bin Laden to preach at his inaugural? Come on, it is not at all the same.
It couldn't just be some christians who like his purpose driven life book and it couldn't be they agree with...
Quote: Warren's five-point plan for global action, the P.E.A.C.E. plan, calls for church-led efforts to tackle global poverty and disease, including the spread of HIV/AIDS...
"Fighting AIDS", for Warren, means "exterminating homosexuality". I linked earlier to an article on what his "fight" against AIDS in Africa has consisted of, including an alliance with Bishop Akinola, who is more extreme than Fred Phelps.

So am I too young or too old to hate Warren sufficiently and/or bail on Obama?

I didnt say that :p

And did Kerry promise to invite Osama bin Laden to preach at his inaugural? Come on, it is not at all the same.

Holy shit.

You actually went there and did it.

You ACTUALLY compared Rick Warren to Osama Bin Laden.

Holy shit.

Does Osama Bin Laden have the support of about half your population now? Is Bin Laden a political force within your country? If so, trust me, even for the American gays, the right to marry is the least of your issues.

For crying out loud. I'm out of here. I'm not arguing with you any longer. If only to avoid seeing you compare Obama to Chamberlain.

Does Osama Bin Laden have the support of about half your population now?
Obviously yes, or they wouldn't have voted Democrat. Jesus Heikoku, don't you understand?

Obviously yes, or they wouldn't have voted Democrat. Jesus Heikoku, don't you understand?

You're SO lucky you're joking. :p

"Fighting AIDS", for Warren, means "exterminating homosexuality". I linked earlier to an article on what his "fight" against AIDS in Africa has consisted of, including an alliance with Bishop Akinola, who is more extreme than Fred Phelps.

notice how you completely avoided this section of my text:
Warren has been invited to speak at national and international forums including the United Nations, the World Economic Forum in Davos, the African Union, the Council on Foreign Relations, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, TED, and Time’s Global Health Summit. He was named one of "America's Top 25 Leaders" in the October 31, 2005, issue of U.S. News and World Report.[4] Warren was elected by TIME magazine as one of 15 World Leaders Who Mattered Most in 2004 and one of the "100 Most Influential People in the World" (2005).[5] Newsweek magazine called him one of "15 People Who Make America Great", an award given to people who, through bravery or generosity, genius or passion, devote themselves to helping others.[6]
Appraently, he's not just a right wing homophobe to Americans and to the rest of the world.

notice how you completely avoided this section of my text:

Appraently, he's not just a right wing homophobe to Americans and to the rest of the world.

This really just supports Tmut's position, by showing how little people think of gays and gay rights...

No I don't really believe that, I'm just expecting him to say it...

This really just supports Tmut's position, by showing how little people think of gays and gay rights...

No I don't really believe that, I'm just expecting him to say it...

That Obama is a Failed President and that inviting Warren to the inauguration ceremony is tantamount to recriminalizing homosexuality in the United States?

notice how you completely avoided this section of my text:
You were supposedly explaining to me why people voted for Prop 8. I explained that few of them did so because they agree with Rick Warren (on the one side, I get Cat Tribe berating me for exaggerating Warren's role in that campaign; now you on the other side tell me Warren has the allegiance of every single Yes on 8 voter). There are 8% who voted for it because they believed the lies from the Mormon campaign, but no longer do so; an unknown percentage who believed those lies and still do; another unknown-sized group who were only opposed to allowing us the "M-word" but would be willing to make some accommodation of us; and then the residue who agree with Warren that we are the same as child molestors and need to be neutered or imprisoned.
Appraently, he's not just a right wing homophobe to Americans and to the rest of the world.
But he IS, among other things, a right wing homophobe of a particularly extreme variety. His other "good works"? I DON'T GIVE A SHIT. It's like telling Jews about how Adolf was a wonderful "uncle" to the Goebbels children and was always nice to his dog.

You ACTUALLY compared Rick Warren to Osama Bin Laden.
I am far more likely to be murdered by a follower of Rick Warren than of Osama bin Laden.
I have already had my life threatened twice, once by someone spouting the exact same crap that Warren does, once by apparent members of a movement somewhat less extreme than his.
I am SICK TO DEATH of people on this thread trying to tell me, "come on, Warren's not just a bad guy". Yes, he is.

Does Osama Bin Laden have the support of about half your population now?
He has a considerably larger following than Rick Warren. If, like String Cheese, you think Warren speaks for the "majority" of Americans, you are mistaken.

Is Bin Laden a political force within your country?
You were missing the point of the comparison, anyhow. The Bush 2004 campaign was equating opposition to the war with actual support for the enemy; I agree with you that was deceitful. I am equating giving a singular honor to the enemy with actual support for the enemy: that is not "the same". Obama can say all he likes that giving this honor to Warren doesn't mean an endorsement of his nastier views: still, it gives him tangible support. You floated a theory that Obama was actually trying to injure Warren, make him look intractable: but that is not how it is playing out; Warren is thriving on the media attention, acting all "Who? Me?" like he's a perfectly reasonable person who's being picked on for no reason, and lots of people are swallowing it (including some on this thread who should know better).
That Obama is a Failed President and that inviting Warren to the inauguration ceremony is tantamount to recriminalizing homosexuality in the United States?
Nice strawman. I have said I withhold final judgment on Obama until we see what happens after the inauguration, but: inviting Warren was a horrible and dismayingly insensitive insult, which leads me to expect he will be a do-nothing on the issue.

I'm more looking forward to WHEN Obama is president. Some people are complaining about him already and he hasn't even become president! :rolleyes:

This is up at Obama's change.gov website outlining his agenda regarding the LGBT community, expanding on his issues (http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda/) page from his campaign website, though for those whom the sky is falling I'm sure will dismiss it to continue to see doom and gloom in who gives a 90 second invocation at ceremonial event:

Support for the LGBT Community

"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."

-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007

The Obama-Biden Plan

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.
Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
Expand Adoption Rights: Barack Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, Barack Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. Obama will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. Obama also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. He will continue to speak out on this issue as president.
Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. Barack Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.
Now, 'civil unions' aren't marriages and separate but equal isn't, but this isn't a change from his campaign position so if that remains as a doom and gloom, you really should have seen it coming. I disagree with that (as well as Warren, lest that be lost in all the hysteria), but again, I wasn't excited about Obama because I thought he'd do no wrong or do nothing I wouldn't agree with, but rather that he is a president I could disagree with. Well, if I want that that means that he's also going to be around other people I disagree with, including allowing someone to give a 90 second invocation (who in the process has had to answer for his views and long after the ticker tape is swept up is going to be left to wonder why his work on poverty and disease is being overshadowed by his intolerance and what that will mean for the message of his ministry from this point forward. Already his claim that his church doesn't accept gay members has been taken off his website. Hardly a reversal, but certainly a sign that his intolerance is becoming an albatross, something that would not have happened without the spotlight.)

I am SICK TO DEATH of people on this thread trying to tell me, "come on, Warren's not just a bad guy". Yes, he is.

If, like String Cheese, you think Warren speaks for the "majority" of Americans, you are mistaken.

You floated a theory that Obama was actually trying to injure Warren, make him look intractable: but that is not how it is playing out; Warren is thriving on the media attention, acting all "Who? Me?" like he's a perfectly reasonable person who's being picked on for no reason, and lots of people are swallowing it (including some on this thread who should know better).

1- I'm not saying that. AT ALL. And you know it. Furthermore, you REALLY think Bin Laden has a bigger following IN THE US than Warren? As for the un-people who threatened you, attack them to the full extent of the law. I really hope this gets you closure. But I have to ask, where DO you live? Utah?

2- I don't know if he does. I'm not an American. And I don't think he does.

3- I still float that theory. For many reasons: First, Warren didn't give the speech yet; we don't know how it'll pan out or how Obama will react to it. Second, Obama isn't President yet; as far as we know, he may well start pushing for gay rights soon after he takes over AND, yes, using the speech as a way to say he TRIED to bridge a gap. Third, yes, Obama may have FAILED in the theoretical attempt, because, as you may know, he's not perfect, and by now even you must agree that rescinding the invitation would harm your cause more than allowing Warren to speak, by making him a martyr. Fourth, Obama might well have known how much scrutiny that would put Warren's position under, and might well have known that he'd suffer pressure to change it DUE to the scrutiny, as CToaN pointed out.

Listen carefully: I do NOT support Warren. I hate him only slightly less than you do. But you don't destroy an enemy with blind hate. You do so with cold calculation. If Obama failed on what I think may be his purpose in inviting Warren, he failed due to a mistake in calculation, not due to TRYING TO USE calculation. That doesn't mean that you should attempt to destroy your enemy with blind hatred, that means you should come up with another calculated attempt.

For those of you who forget me, I supported Hillary Rodham Clinton during the presidential primaries.

It's easy to forget ancient history. On internet forums ancient history usually is defined as "anything that happened before yesterday". A short attention span is pretty much the norm here.

While I do not consider myself to be a bitter partisan, I nevertheless insist on a Democratic candidate who not only shares my values, but ACTS on them.

Opinions may vary. As long as entertainment is assured, you can be whatever you want to be IMHO.

For those of you who forget me, I supported Hillary Rodham Clinton during the presidential primaries. I was bitterly disappointed when she was defeated by Barack Obama, whom I later voted for in the general election. One of the arguments I made against Obama at the time was the argument that I was unsure about his commitment to Democratic values. While I do not consider myself to be a bitter partisan, I nevertheless insist on a Democratic candidate who not only shares my values, but ACTS on them.


And then this happened:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/17/obama.warren/index.html

This only further emphasizes the concerns I already had about President-Elect Obama going into the election. I have long feared that his desire for moderation will override his willingness to fight for Democratic principles, such as equal rights for gays and lesbians, and for a woman's right to choose. Now we are confronted with the very real possibility that Obama will cede the troublesome social issues to the Republicans in order to achieve political victory in other areas.

I do not consider myself a partisan, but the Democratic Party has won sweeping victories in two consecutive national elections. We have control of the congressional and presidential venues of the national government. While this does not clear us to chart a far-left course politically, I think it IS time for the Democratic Party to wake up and understand that is is now the Democratic agenda in Washington, not the GOP. I did not vote for Obama and the Democrats because I want to concede policy ideals to conservatives. I voted for them to change trajectory from right to left politically. If the Democrats do not start to grow a spine really quickly, I will withhold my support in 2010 and 2012.

This is important because...why?

PS: The Warren thing, not the ceding ground. That would be important, but I see no evidence of that.

[QUOTE]You were supposedly explaining to me why people voted for Prop 8. I explained that few of them did so because they agree with Rick Warren (on the one side, I get Cat Tribe berating me for exaggerating Warren's role in that campaign; now you on the other side tell me Warren has the allegiance of every single Yes on 8 voter). There are 8% who voted for it because they believed the lies from the Mormon campaign, but no longer do so; an unknown percentage who believed those lies and still do; another unknown-sized group who were only opposed to allowing us the "M-word" but would be willing to make some accommodation of us; and then the residue who agree with Warren that we are the same as child molestors and need to be neutered or imprisoned.
i still have yet to see anything that suggests warren thinks homosexuals should neutered or imprisoned first of all. Next i didn't say a majority i said a sizeable section of the population. Do you know why Bush got elected into office in 2004? Most people said that the number one issue that made them vote for him was terrorism and "moral values".
But he IS, among other things, a right wing homophobe of a particularly extreme variety. His other "good works"? I DON'T GIVE A SHIT. It's like telling Jews about how Adolf was a wonderful "uncle" to the Goebbels children and was always nice to his dog.
Again, you actually went there. An Adolf hitler comparison, when warren starts suggesting we round up and execute all the homosexuals talk to me then. Adolf being nice to his dog? That's comparable to working against disease and poverty across the world? That's comparable to being invited to a number of prestigious organizations including the U.N. to talk on those subjects? Please, your argument is sounding more and more delusional. This is the only position i've found of warrens positions on prop 8: On December 19, 2008, in an interview with Dateline NBC, Warren stated his reason for supporting Proposition 8, saying that he feared that gay marriage would lead to hate speech prosecutions of Christians who oppose gay marriage and view homosexuality as sin.
While i strongly dislike the idea of him speaking, equating the fact that Obama is some how "flirting" with the enemy or to say this is the basis for all of his decisions is completely absurd.He has a considerably larger following than Rick Warren. If, like String Cheese, you think Warren speaks for the "majority" of Americans, you are mistaken.
I never said a majority i said a sizeable population.

Nice strawman. I have said I withhold final judgment on Obama until we see what happens after the inauguration, but: inviting Warren was a horrible and dismayingly insensitive insult, which leads me to expect he will be a do-nothing on the issue

So far your argument has been that this is the basis for all of his policies even before he even steps into office.

i still have yet to see anything that suggests warren thinks homosexuals should neutered or imprisoned first of all.


What do we do to "practicising" pedophiles, Einstein?

What do we do to "practicising" pedophiles, Einstein?

Quietly transfer them to another parish.

Quietly transfer them to another parish.

Zing!

This is up at Obama's change.gov website outlining his agenda regarding the LGBT community

None of this was there in the initial release of the change.gov agenda on Nov. 5th, where our issues were simply not on the table; and reporters said that unidentified members of the transition team were saying not to expect any action even on DADT. Nate Silver however has pointed out that the update was made a few weeks prior to the Warren flap, which does somewhat change the picture.
Well, if I want that that means that he's also going to be around other people I disagree with

Is he going to be around people who foully insult you? Is he going to honor people who foully insult you? I am sick and tired of hearing people describe Warren as simply "disagreeing" with me.
1- I'm not saying that. AT ALL. And you know it.
No, I didn't know that at all. Portraying him as just another mainstream American certainly looked like you were saying he "wasn't so bad".
Furthermore, you REALLY think Bin Laden has a bigger following IN THE US than Warren?
WTF???????????????????????????
Where do you get the idea I thought bin Laden's following was in the US?
It is evident that I failed to convey to you, at all, in the slightest, what I was trying to say, so I will make one more attempt. You equated accusing Kerry of helping bin-Laden because he criticized the war, with accusing Obama of helping Warren because he singled him out for honor. I said that would only be analogous if Kerry had singled bin Laden out for honor. You said, well Warren is a political force who needs to be dealt with, so that's why he was honored; OK, bin Laden is also a political force who needs to be dealt with, but giving him honors is hardly the way we choose to do that.
As for the un-people who threatened you, attack them to the full extent of the law. I really hope this gets you closure. But I have to ask, where DO you live? Utah?

I live in Michigan, where the laws are considerably more regressive than in Utah. I told some of my stories in a long post that's back a few pages.
EDIT: it's at #380 on page 26
When I was left on the railroad tracks, the law completely disbelieved my story and arrested me. Fortunately, my assailants used one of my credit cards at a time when I had a perfect alibi (I was still in jail) so my story was partially verified and the charges against me were dropped-- but there was no further follow-through. I am sure you have grown up able to take it for granted that the law will be on your side against anyone who attacks you, but I have not had that luxury.
Obama isn't President yet; as far as we know, he may well start pushing for gay rights soon after he takes over AND, yes, using the speech as a way to say he TRIED to bridge a gap.

I hope so, but I will believe it when I have seen it. We have been burned by politicians so many times that I wish you would just accept that I am cynical: I have earned my cynicism.

i still have yet to see anything that suggests warren thinks homosexuals should neutered or imprisoned first of all.
My sig is from an article about the "therapy" Warren pushes gays into (I will try to find the link for the full article again). Note that I did not invent the term "neutering": it is the term used within Warren's group (the article from which I took my sig was not where I first heard it).
EDIT: one source on Warren's "therapy" (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/rick-warren-and.html#more)
And I did so provide a link, long ago, to Warren's endorsement of criminal laws against homosexuality in Africa. He supports those who would go further, such as Ssemba in Uganda, who wants it to be a crime to speak in opposition to criminal laws against homosexuality, and Akinola in Nigeria, who wants it to be a crime for "known" homosexuals to "meet".
Next i didn't say a majority i said a sizeable section of the population.
You said Warren was the reason Prop 8 passed. I say the group who thinks like him is, of course, part of the Prop 8 vote, but there are other subgroups who could be persuadable; the subgroup who think like Warren are the people it is useless to talk to: there is nothing to do but isolate and defeat them, as we would the KKK or any other group of impervious bigots.
So far your argument has been that this is the basis for all of his policies even before he even steps into office.
I'm saying it's a very bad sign for what his policies are going to be.

I'm saying it's a very bad sign for what his policies are going to be.That's fine. I'm saying that it isn't a very bad sign. We've come to an impasse.

That's fine. I'm saying that it isn't a very bad sign. We've come to an impasse.Well, it's the only sign there's been, and it's certainly not a good one.

Portraying him as just another mainstream American certainly looked like you were saying he "wasn't so bad".

Listen carefully.

Will you post on where and how I portrayed him as mainstream, or should we take this into moderation?

I TIRE OF THIS. You are not to distort what I say any longer!

Not just banning marriage, but anything "similar to" marriage? That's language you can drive a truck through. Can you check? If so, when was that language put in?

2004. It isn't the exact language, but it's certainly what they were going for. Basically, the law can't recognize any union as being entitled to the benefits of marriage. Given the fact that many such benefits can be achieved through other means, it does call into question other arrangements that gay couples might make.

And a city law in Atlanta that essentially recognized domestic partnerships has already been struck down, IIRC.

It is giving him more power, to push for each and every one of his viewpoints.

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't see how this gives Warren any more power. Those who already know about him already have opinions of him. And those who don't are just going to see some preacher giving a prayer.

Or at least softening on it. This is exactly the kind of expanded reach for Warren that I was afraid of. Oh, the King Center says, Obama thinks he's an OK guy, so let's give him our platform too.

Or, you know, maybe they were already aware of him and already saw him as a religious leader? He did have a best-selling religious book, after all.

Unless you're gay, you don't have any reason to be worried about it.

I object to this statement. The idea that one has to actually be gay to have reason to worry about LGBT issues is ridiculous.

Well, it's the only sign there's been, and it's certainly not a good one.

No, it's the only sign you're acknowledging. That's not the same thing.

Well, it's the only sign there's been, and it's certainly not a good one.Once again, we're at an impasse. I refuse to acknowledge your claim that this is a very bad sign. You refuse to acknowledge my claim that it is not a very bad sign. Impasse still = impasse.

Among that 52% are 8% who voted for it then but would not do so now, because they feel they were lied to: about how 1st-graders would have to be indoctrinated into homosexuality, or how churches would be forced to conduct same-sex weddings whether they liked it or not, or all the other crap they were fed.

Out of curiosity, do you have a source for that 8%?

Personally I find it hard to believe that anyone would buy into any of that BS unless they were looking for an excuse to vote the way they did.

Listen carefully.

Will you post on where and how I portrayed him as mainstream, or should we take this into moderation?

I TIRE OF THIS. You are not to distort what I say any longer!I understood your sentence "Does Osama Bin Laden have the support of about half your population now?" to be a claim that Rick Warren's positions are supported by half the US. If that's not what you were saying, fine.
I'm sorry, but I honestly don't see how this gives Warren any more power. Those who already know about him already have opinions of him. And those who don't are just going to see some preacher giving a prayer.
No, they're going to see him on TV all the time, saying all kinds of crap, now that he's been anointed as the #1 preacher in the country. He is out for much longer than 15 minutes of fame.
I object to this statement. The idea that one has to actually be gay to have reason to worry about LGBT issues is ridiculous.
Is it? Every non-gay who comes on here just tells me I'm stupid and crazy to be feeling worries. It just makes me feel more friendless than ever.
No, it's the only sign you're acknowledging. That's not the same thing.
What are the other signs, then? That our issues were added to the agenda as a belated afterthought? That we get a marching band in the parade? That one person on the stand will be a friend of ours, if not one of us (note, though: Lowery is now at pains to say that he never meant to imply he favors same-sex marriage)? That one member of the Council of Environmental Quality will be a lesbian? We rank far lower with Obama than our most vicious enemies do; that's disquieting, and stop trying to tell me it isn't.
Out of curiosity, do you have a source for that 8%?
Not handy, no. I'll look.

No, they're going to see him on TV all the time, saying all kinds of crap, now that he's been anointed as the #1 preacher in the country. He is out for much longer than 15 minutes of fame.

But he already achieved more than 15 minutes of fame all on his own. Among evangelicals (the group he'll actually appeal to), he's already a well-known name. And most of the people who are just hearing about him now are hearing about him in a bad light, so I don't see how that'll help him.

Is it? Every non-gay who comes on here just tells me I'm stupid and crazy to be feeling worries. It just makes me feel more friendless than ever.

Even some people from the LGBT community have said that you're overreacting. It isn't a matter of being gay or not.

And yes, it is ridiculous to assume that those who are not gay don't have reason to worry when gay people are mistreated.

Not handy, no. I'll look.

Kk. Thanks. =)

What are the other signs, then? That our issues were added to the agenda as a belated afterthought? That we get a marching band in the parade? That one person on the stand will be a friend of ours, if not one of us (note, though: Lowery is now at pains to say that he never meant to imply he favors same-sex marriage)? That one member of the Council of Environmental Quality will be a lesbian? We rank far lower with Obama than our most vicious enemies do; that's disquieting, and stop trying to tell me it isn't.


Please compare the list of things you just dismissed in favor of one cat getting a 90 second prayer to every president before Obama.

I understood your sentence "Does Osama Bin Laden have the support of about half your population now?" to be a claim that Rick Warren's positions are supported by half the US. If that's not what you were saying, fine.

Having the support of half your population does not mainstream make. Do you argue that McCain is mainstream? PALIN?

Is it? Every non-gay who comes on here just tells me I'm stupid and crazy to be feeling worries. It just makes me feel more friendless than ever.

1. If you were expressing mere "worries," you'd be facing less disagreement.

2. The "you'd understand if you were gay" schtick is not persuasive and is a bit offensive.

You may not share the sentiment, but I want to be clear that I respect you and your position. I'm fully willing to accept that you have good reasons for outrage at Warren and some subsequent concern about Obama. Where we disagree appears to be the degree of that outrage and concern. You've made some pretty extreme statements in this thread, to which some of us have reacted negatively.

most of the people who are just hearing about him now are hearing about him in a bad light, so I don't see how that'll help him.
No, they're hearing that he's a good reasonable man (even Obama says so) who's being picked on for no reason at all.
Even some people from the LGBT community have said that you're overreacting. It isn't a matter of being gay or not.
They may or may not agree with how worried I am, but none of the gay posters have been telling me I'm stupid or crazy to be worried, as all of the non-gay posters have.
And yes, it is ridiculous to assume that those who are not gay don't have reason to worry when gay people are mistreated.
Maybe you would have REASON to worry-- but, you don't.
Please compare the list of things you just dismissed in favor of one cat getting a 90 second prayer to every president before Obama.
Sure. Our issues were featured more prominently both in the campaign speeches and in the transition's announced agenda by Clinton: then we were sold out (and ended up worse than before) as soon as it was clear it would actually cost some political capital to do something for us; so why should I not worry this will happen again?
On appointments, the Bush Administration has more openly gay personnel than the Obama Administration will.
The marching band is new, true: I hope that is not the only piece of progress we will see.
Obama disagrees with the view that we should have equal marriage rights: is that one of the viewpoints he "reaches out to" despite disagreement? Oh no, that's not part of the "diversity of viewpoints" he embraces (no-one with that view will take any part in his inaugural or administration); but the "viewpoint" that I am the same as a child molestor and should be neutered or imprisoned, THAT he wants to "reach out" to.
Having the support of half your population does not mainstream make. Do you argue that McCain is mainstream? PALIN?
McCain did not have the support of half the population. Palin did not have the support of even one-third. But both of them are closer to being "mainstream" than Warren.
1. If you were expressing mere "worries," you'd be facing less disagreement.

I AM expressing "worries", although I wouldn't call them "mere". I have frequently been accused of expressing prejudgements, regardless of how often I repeat that I am NOT going to "scrape Obama off my car" until I actually see what he does. I am just saying I have a very gloomy outlook on the chances he will do much good for me.
2. The "you'd understand if you were gay" schtick is not persuasive and is a bit offensive.

Is it as offensive as being compared to a child molestor?
As I told Dem, I don't think it is IMPOSSIBLE for a non-gay to understand how worrisome this is; I just haven't seen it.

No, they're hearing that he's a good reasonable man (even Obama says so) who's being picked on for no reason at all.

Source?

As I told Dem, I don't think it is IMPOSSIBLE for a non-gay to understand how worrisome this is; I just haven't seen it.Or is it possible that you have completely and utterly blown this selection out of proportion to the point of causing yourself apoplexy? We're at that impasse thing again.

Is it? Every non-gay who comes on here just tells me I'm stupid and crazy to be feeling worries. It just makes me feel more friendless than ever.


Meh, fuck it. It's clear that some people here are playing this whole thing down. Warren is a fundamentalist Xtian and should not have been invited to a presidential ceremony. No if's and but's about about it. But some people seem to be so focused on abstract notions of "building bridges" from election speeches that, in their current state of mind, they may even advice people in abusive relationships to "build bridges".

No point in further discussions. Just move on.

Source?
Source for what?
That Obama considers him good enough and reasonable enough to be the opening act of his inaugural? Surely Obama isn't thinking that Warren is evil or lunatic.
That many people are taking away from this the impression that Warren's views must be fairly reasonable? I will dredge up more quotes from Warren threads around the net, if necessary.
Or is it possible that you have completely and utterly blown this selection out of proportion to the point of causing yourself apoplexy? We're at that impasse thing again.
*shrug* Of course it's possible. But the only person who could reassure me, or the others who have taken this as a kick to the testicles, is Obama, and he is evidently unwilling to say anything reassuring at this point.

Source for what?
That Obama considers him good enough and reasonable enough to be the opening act of his inaugural? Surely Obama isn't thinking that Warren is evil or lunatic.

Source for Obama saying that he is a good and reasonable man. Either provide a link to Obama actually saying that or admit you're full of shit.

Source for Obama saying that he is a good and reasonable man. Either provide a link to Obama actually saying that or admit you're full of shit.
What I was saying was that PEOPLE THINK THAT Obama is saying that. Those people may be full of shit, but it's nothing new for people to be full of shit; it is of course perfectly natural and to be expected that people will interpret a gesture like this as an endorsement.
Do you need a source for PEOPLE THINKING THAT Obama endorses Warren?

What I was saying was that PEOPLE THINK THAT Obama is saying that. Those people may be full of shit, but it's nothing new for people to be full of shit; it is of course perfectly natural and to be expected that people will interpret a gesture like this as an endorsement.
Do you need a source for PEOPLE THINKING THAT Obama endorses Warren?
That is not what you said.
No, they're hearing that he's a good reasonable man (even Obama says so) who's being picked on for no reason at all.
So either show him saying that he thinks Warren is a good reasonable man or admit you're full of shit.

You ever been in a car with some people and some other car swerves and cuts you off and most of the people in the car are all, "Fuck, that was stupid, what was that person thinking? We better give that guy some room just in case." but then there's that one cat in the car that just starts screaming, "Ohmygodohmygodohmygod! WE COULD HAVE DIED! He almost killed us! Someone give me their cell phone, we need to call the cops! He's going to kill someone! Are you alright? Where you hurt? He tried to kill us! HE WAS TRYING TO KILL US!" and now you have to go, "No, look, dude...it's okay, I mean-" "NO! It's not okay! People die on the road everyday! He's going to kill someone! He tried to kill us!" "No, really, it's just a stupid-" "HE TRIED TO KILL US!" until now you won't even bring it up to your friends or anything because you're afraid it's going to set that guy to hyperventilating again and you're all "Fuck, I don't want to be put in the position of defending a jerk in traffic, but I don't want anyone to think that it's the end of the fucking world, either?"

You ever been in a car with some people and some other car swerves and cuts you off and most of the people in the car are all, "Fuck, that was stupid, what was that person thinking? We better give that guy some room just in case." but then there's that one cat in the car that just starts screaming, "Ohmygodohmygodohmygod! WE COULD HAVE DIED! He almost killed us! Someone give me their cell phone, we need to call the cops! He's going to kill someone! Are you alright? Where you hurt? He tried to kill us! HE WAS TRYING TO KILL US!" and now you have to go, "No, look, dude...it's okay, I mean-" "NO! It's not okay! People die on the road everyday! He's going to kill someone! He tried to kill us!" "No, really, it's just a stupid-" "HE TRIED TO KILL US!" until now you won't even bring it up to your friends or anything because you're afraid it's going to set that guy to hyperventilating again?

Oh fuck off already, that has got to be one of the stupidest analogies ever.

However, it'd would make kinda sense, if that highway was very dangerous, with lots of crashes already, increasing people's sensitivity and then u see the cut off-er, being given a medal or something by the highway patrol cause his car runs on electricity (ie: green).

Still sounds silly but meh. You should look up "build up" in the dictionary, clearly, Warren doesnt exist in vacuum.

Oh fuck off already, that has got to be one of the stupidest analogies ever.

However, it'd would make kinda sense, if that highway was very dangerous, with lots of crashes already, increasing people's sensitivity and then u see the cut off-er, being given a medal or something by the highway patrol cause his car runs on electricity (ie: green).

Still sounds silly but meh. You should look up "build up" in the dictionary, clearly, Warren doesnt exist in vacuum.
No, I stand by it. That you didn't get it doesn't surprise me.

You've taken something that most of us agree is a bad thing and approached it with such hysteria that people who disagree with the decision have been put in the uncomfortable position of having to 'defend' it. I find the analogy apt. Sorry that bunches your underwear.

No, I stand by it. That you didn't get it doesn't surprise me.

You've taken something that most of us agree is a bad thing and approached it with such hysteria that people who disagree with the decision have been put in the uncomfortable position of having to 'defend' it. I find the analogy apt. Sorry that bunches your underwear.
i agree. its a good analogy.

*shrug* Of course it's possible. But the only person who could reassure me, or the others who have taken this as a kick to the testicles, is Obama, and he is evidently unwilling to say anything reassuring at this point. If nothing we say matters to you, at all, then why are you here?

the only person who could reassure me, or the others who have taken this as a kick to the testicles, is Obama

Well, do you have his number?

No, they're hearing that he's a good reasonable man (even Obama says so) who's being picked on for no reason at all.

Funny, I haven't heard that.

They may or may not agree with how worried I am, but none of the gay posters have been telling me I'm stupid or crazy to be worried, as all of the non-gay posters have.

I haven't seen anyone telling you you're stupid or crazy. And those who have criticized your response have criticized the degree of that response, not the fact that you're upset or worried.

Maybe you would have REASON to worry-- but, you don't.

Except.....I do.

I'm not reacting to this particular event in the same way that you are, but that hardly means that I don't worry when members of the LGBT community are mistreated.

Obama disagrees with the view that we should have equal marriage rights: is that one of the viewpoints he "reaches out to" despite disagreement? Oh no, that's not part of the "diversity of viewpoints" he embraces (no-one with that view will take any part in his inaugural or administration);

Actually taking part in either doesn't mean that one isn't reaching out. I would think that someone who point-blank says that they may be wrong and that the opposing viewpoint may be right is doing a pretty good job of reaching out.

No, I stand by it. That you didn't get it doesn't surprise me.

You've taken something that most of us agree is a bad thing and approached it with such hysteria that people who disagree with the decision have been put in the uncomfortable position of having to 'defend' it. I find the analogy apt. Sorry that bunches your underwear.

What I've been saying is this:

Some people's, including yours, reactions to criticism towards Obama have been FAR GREATER than their reaction to Obama's pick itself, even tho they say they disagree with the choice. I think this is wrong.

That is not what you said.
Then let me edit the sentence so that it says what I meant: "No, they're hearing that he's a good reasonable man, that even Obama says so, and that he's being picked on for no reason at all."
So either show him saying that he thinks Warren is a good reasonable man or admit you're full of shit.
What Obama has actually said is that Warren is an example of "disagreeing without being disagreeable" (I strongly reject that characterization of Warren) and part of the "diversity of viewpoints" that he welcomes. He does not consider Warren so unreasonable as to be outside the pale, which may not quite be the same as calling him "reasonable", but even this limited endorsement is very insulting to those Warren has attacked.
If nothing we say matters to you, at all, then why are you here?
Why are you? Everybody wants to get in one last kick at me, but I am sick and tired of taking insults lying down.
Well, do you have his number?
People have tried using the feedback on change.gov and writing to the transition team. There has been no response.
Funny, I haven't heard that.
Well that's what I'm seeing. I'll rotate in some more quotes from the Warren threads if people really want to see them.
I would think that someone who point-blank says that they may be wrong and that the opposing viewpoint may be right is doing a pretty good job of reaching out.
Obama has not said he might be wrong about marriage equality, or offered to hear out our side. He "reaches out" only to the side that says we're the same as child molestors and should be neutered or imprisoned.

Obama has not said he might be wrong about marriage equality,

Yes, actually, he has said that. Read The Audacity of Hope.

He "reaches out" only to the side that says we're the same as child molestors and should be neutered or imprisoned.

You keep characterizing Warren as holding this view but you (1) have never answered my request for some evidence of this view and (2) are deliberately ignoring that Warren has said more recently that he expressly rejects such a view.

Then let me edit the sentence so that it says what I meant: "No, they're hearing that he's a good reasonable man, that even Obama says so, and that he's being picked on for no reason at all."
Okay, fair enough
What Obama has actually said is that Warren is an example of "disagreeing without being disagreeable" (I strongly reject that characterization of Warren) and part of the "diversity of viewpoints" that he welcomes. He does not consider Warren so unreasonable as to be outside the pale, which may not quite be the same as calling him "reasonable", but even this limited endorsement is very insulting to those Warren has attacked.
See, this is why you should dial your rhetoric back a bit, now you're coming across as a reasonable person with genuine concerns, not as a mirror image of Warren.

Yes, actually, he has said that. Read The Audacity of Hope.

Bah. Reading the tea leaves of subtle, secret signs is much more fun.

BTW, as an athiest, should I be equally outraged at not just the choice of Warren (who would label me a Christophobe, among other things), but the decision to have prayer at the inauguration at all?

Or is that silly?

You keep characterizing Warren as holding this view but you (1) have never answered my request for some evidence of this view and


He did compare gays with pedophiles and "practising" pedos are jailed. So his views suggest those, except for the neutering part.


(2) are deliberately ignoring that Warren has said more recently that he expressly rejects such a view.

In his latest message which was showed in rachel maddow show, he denied having expressed those views. So he was blatantly lying, which is quite different than expressly rejecting.

He did compare gays with pedophiles and "practising" pedos are jailed. So his views suggest those, except for the neutering part.

1. Source?

2. It takes a bit of a logical leap from "gay marriage is no more acceptable than an adult marrying a child" to "gays are pedophiles" to "all gays should be imprisoned or neutered."

In his latest message which was showed in rachel maddow show, he denied having expressed those views. So he was blatantly lying, which is quite different than expressly rejecting.

It should be easy for you to show me this blatant lie.

He did compare gays with pedophiles and "practising" pedos are jailed. So his views suggest those, except for the neutering part.

In his latest message which was showed in rachel maddow show, he denied having expressed those views. So he was blatantly lying, which is quite different than expressly rejecting.

To be fair (and this leaves a dirty taste in my mouth since the comments were ridiculous anyways), the quote that's been thrown around a lot was not directly a comparison of homosexuals and pedophiles. He was asked if he saw incestuous marriage, marriage to a child, etc. in the same light as same-sex marriage. It is possible that his point was not that the various actions are all the same, but instead that he would not consider any of them to be appropriate marriages.

It could be sort of like pointing out that murder, theft, and jaywalking are all illegal. Of course, some crimes are worse than others, but they're still all crimes. That sort of thing.

Ugh.

1. Source?
...
It should be easy for you to show me this blatant lie.

I did already. In a previous post. But here's the link again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rwk845iMXY


2. It takes a bit of a logical leap from "gay marriage is no more acceptable than an adult marrying a child" to "gays are pedophiles" to "all gays should be imprisoned or neutered."


"RICK WARREN: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call 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.

STEVEN WALDMAN: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

RICK WARREN: Oh I do. … "

Wheres the leap? If an older guy marries a child, he'd be jailed.