-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/when-has-obama-ever-reached-out-to.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
So Mr. President Elect:
Just heard your sappy explanation as to why you want Rick Warren at the inauguration. I say you are wrong unless of course Mr. David Duke is also going to be there and you haven't announced this yet. Is it true? Is David Duke coming to your inauguration and doing an invocation? Why not? Because he hates black people? So what? How can you have any conversations with him unless you invite this racist biggot? Or is somehow protecting your daughters from racist biggotry more important than protecting me and mine from gay biggotry? I cant wait to hear your political response, I am sure it will leave me breathless just like your inconsiderate choice of Rick Warren. Again Mr. President Elect, where is David Duke?
Keep spinning and parsing Obama.
His 'belief' and his money stripped a group of people of their rights.
NOBODY SHOULD HAVE THAT FREEDOM, even if they hide behind religion to avoid the consequences!
A right was given and then taken away instantly. How many years did it take to over turn that and how was it done?
This is where I agree with you COMPLETELY. Rick Warren is wrong to allow his belief to take rights from ANY citizen. But when you place someone on the defense ALL THE TIME...all you get is a FIGHT. Warren is wrong, wrong, wrong...but coming back at him with this type of rage does not strip him of his power. Challenge this through the political and legal system. Challenge it in the social constructs of society....BUT CALLING A REASONABLE PERSON A BIGOT because they are not mad about prop 8 and still SPEAK to people who voted for it is not right...
Boycott, march peacefully, agitate intelligently...BUT DO NOT BULLY....it just shuts reasonable people. I am a prime example, I agree with "all" marriage rights and equality, but you are talking about my people and my PRESIDENT so it puts me in a defensive position as opposed to a common ground position.
Civil unions as defined by Obama will not provide "all" marriage rights unless thousands of laws are changed around the country that use marriage as a defining term. And that ain't gonna happen. What he's talking about is changing a few significant laws at the federal level (probably including IRS), but he's not, I guarantee you, talking about ALL. Only marriage does that.
And I'm not satisfied to use the gays only bathroom and the gays only drinking fountain.
Look. There are no such things. If there were, I would have had to use them, and so far I have not.
Further, when they did exist for African-Americans, they were part of a real system of actual specific domination (Jim Crow). Segregation had a particular purpose and meaning in that system.
I really wish people would cut out the inaccurate shallow symbolic reference points to something that isn't the same thing. It's an approach that is all drama and no substance IMO. It's a slick shiny move that confuses things by not attending to the actual lived realities of our actual lives as LGB and/or T people.
The rest of your post raises substantive points.
Also, speaking of substance linked to people's actual lived realities -- if you want to talk about "LGBT" bathroom issues beyond shiny inaccurate metaphors, how about talking about the nasty harassment that some trans people have to face in real everyday life related to bathroom use?
If you are looking for racists and anti-semites that Obama has courted, you won't find many. In "Audacity of Hope" he talks about seeing out a meeting with Robert Byrd, former KKK clansman, but unlike Warren Byrd has apologized for his misdeeds. Obama went to church with Rev. Wright, who sometimes said some ridiculous stuff about white people and Israel (although based more on politics rather than any sort of anti-semitism).
He picked Larry Summers for his cabinet, despite Summers' misogynistic statements about women. Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill played the race card against blacks, talking about "hard-working Americans, white Americans" and yet Obama gave her Sec. of State. Lieberman had a pretty strong anti-Obama bias, equating him with terrorists, and yet Obama turned the other cheek. McCain called Obama a pedophile, and Obama made nice with him after the election.
Rick Warren is a much worse creature than these others, and it pisses me off that he was selected, but I'm not going to bury Obama over it. Instead, I'm going to expect that Obama make good on his promises to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and repeal DOMA.
While we're on the topic I'm no fan of Rick Warren and his homophobia and I generally agree with you on the substance of the concern you have.
But I have a feeling that you're pushing it here. I would be willing to bet that Obama has dealt with racists nearly every day of his life, and I have almost no doubt that he's had to be cordial around people that he knew were involved in anti-segregation movements or even worse. Hell just being a US senator means you fraternize with at least a couple former Klansmen.
This comment is kind of absurd. And more to the point, smart competent black man and women who did not shy away from confronting and reaching out to racist whites and trying to find common ground probably has a lot to do with how much progress this country has made over the years on racial issues.
I wholeheartedly support him even reaching out to RIck Warren.
The PROBLEM here isn't that. The problem is that having him be a part of the inaugural is a tacit ENDORSEMENT of Warren as a person of substance. There's a huge difference between outreach, or even attending a debate/forum hosted by someone who has objectionable views, and having them be a part of something like this. That's where I think Obama has gone too far.
So I agree with you on the larger issue. But what you're saying here is suspect.
'The PROBLEM here isn't that. The problem is that having him be a part of the inaugural is a tacit ENDORSEMENT of Warren as a person of substance. There's a huge difference between outreach, or even attending a debate/forum hosted by someone who has objectionable views, and having them be a part of something like this. That's where I think Obama has gone too far."
Is exactly right.
By all means, reach out to people and create a dialogue. But don't honor someone who has worked that hard to deny people civil rights. Sheesh.
You guys need to get off your little hissy fit and see what's right in front of your noses.
Why don't you gasp as he uses the word n--gger with to apparent irony, and talks to clearly openly racist congressmen while in the process of pushing through what's possibly the single most important government accomplishment on behalf of African American rights since reconstruction.
Would you have preferred he refused to engage blatantly racist southern congressmen and given up on passing the voting rights acts?
At the time unabashed racism was not something people felt compelled to hide. It was right out in the open, especially in the south.
Sadly -- tragically -- the bashing of gays is still accepted in a way that's totally and completely unacceptable. That's our reality. Prop 8 was instructive as well. God damm that was California we're talking about. And don't blame it all on the mormons, this country has a long way to go.
Obama is the first president in history who would say something like this:
"I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans."
That's incredible. Clinton hedged here at best, or was outright unhelpful at worst. I'm inclined to take Obama at his word, and I'm inclined to think that progress at the federal government and executive branch level on these issues will be as strong as anyone can expect or hope for given the state of public opinion.
Clinton triangulated by changing his policies to try to fit in and gain support. As far as I can tell Obama's strategy (like Johnson's, say) is to coopt the people you disagree with and play nice while you actually advance the policies that you want.
There's a world of difference. Man's not even president yet. I think an admonition to look at the policy not the pageantry is exactly the right approach.
"I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans." -
Wrong. He's not the first nor is he the last to lie under pressure. Obama is not a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. (Transgender people? Let's not even go there.) The man supports a standard of "separate but equal." To say that a person is an advocate for equal rights for a group he just declared are less human and less deserving than everyone else is intellectually dishonest. If you want to look at the policy, fine. I'll meet you back here in four years, and if DOMA and DADT have been repealed, and an inclusive ENDA and the Matthew Shepard Act have both been passed, I'll eat crow. If they haven't, then you can take your hero-worship and shove it up your ass alongside your privilege.
Although I do think John (and many who agree with him in these comments) make a very valid point, it's not being made well, or in a manner that will be productive.
And Warren is a prick.
Well said. Why I'm supposed to be comfortable with the idea that my civil rights are a matter of opinion mystifies me no end.
"The City Council on Wednesday unanimously voted to create a domestic-partner registry, following in the footsteps of Tucson, which launched a similar program in 2003. The registry guarantees only that domestic partners have the right to visit each other in Phoenix hospitals, nursing homes, rehabilitation centers and other health-care facilities." The Alliance Defense Fund spoke out at hearings against the measure."
Well, it's nice that I could visit my partner in the hospital in Phoenix . . . too bad I don't live there.
You think it's an issue about "one particular civil right, marriage" but it isn't . . . it's about my right to EXIST in this society. That's what's under attack and if you don't see it, you're not looking very hard.
Sorry, that seems akin to Christian marriage being victimized by same sex marriages.
I think he has reached out to racial bigots -- I mean he freaking commended McCain for not bringing up Rev. Wright and he met wish him after McCain lost. I think he is very tolerant of people with racial bigotry since he grew up surrounded by white people. So I think this post is a little unfair. We may not like this approach, but I think it is a fairly consistent approach that Obama has.
EXACTLY LIKE IT.
Only people I can think of are the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity types, and I'm not sure I want Obama reaching out to them either.
Basically, what Obama is doing is following through on his campaign rhetoric. I think a lot of progressives don't actually want to recognize or value the ideas of right-wingers and I can understand that, but Obama promised that he would do that. I also remember how horrible it has felt for the last eight years to feel completely voiceless and shut out. This purely symbolic act by Warren gives people the feeling that they are seen. But Obama has not given them any power in his Cabinet. Even his Republican choices are not raving religious loonies.
Read my previous posts. I despise Warren but I am starting to see both sides of this now. If people give up on Obama that does not help the cause of gay marriage. Stay a part of his network and fight for those campaign promises made to the gay community. I will help.
You might understand how cannabis users feel about Eric Holder.
Obama was never about fundamental, humane, liberating Change.
He's just a different shade of lipstick on the same fascist piggery.
Obama has no intention of changing that fact.
So maybe he's a twofer.
Remember that George Wallace and Strom Thurmond were both relatively non-racist personally, and Harry Truman (in his younger days) was personally bigoted.
The question is not, "Is Obama a Bigot," but rather, "Why does he find cozening up to anti-gay bigotry an acceptable way to establish a dialogue?
Americans need to be reminded that BIGOT doesn't only apply to racists. And also that African Americans can be bigots, too.
I had planned on leaving my Obama sign in my yard till Jan 20th.
I removed the sign today.
.
The Corporate Media has been trying to dig up one story after another about Obama disappointing his supporters and basically coming up empty.
They know they got something now, and they're ready to run with it.
Wait until this delusionist comes out and condemns Obama for doing something and the headlines are "Obama's Choice for Inauguration denounces Obama as a heretic."
He is just giving a lying partisan delusionist hack a honor that scum does not deserve,
This will only alienate Obama's supporters, embolden his enemies and bestow further legitimacy upon an enemy of humankind.
It IS the policy were care about, right, more than the ceremony?
Say instead he picked someone who we liked but "they" despised? We'd love it - it'd be a strong and clear message, and we'd all enjoy the "fuck you" implied. But does that actually get us where we want to be? I'd have *preferred* someone like that, but this one has its silver linings too.
Personally I'd prefer someone more like Richard Dawkins, someone who could really jab a finger in the whole "we must be religious" doctrine. But pragmatically I want my president to be religious because he can be more effective that way, which gets me closer to what I want.
On another topic: AmericaBlog is my favorite blog, right at the top of my list and checked frequently - obsessively even - liberal enough to satisfy even me. But sometimes I make a comment that isn't *quite* in line with the dominate theme, and I get responses accusing me of being fascist, racist, not caring, part of the problem, etc etc. I don't take it too personally because I'm comfortable in my far-left liberal values. But my preference is that if we don't want to live in the Right's world, that we don't act like them. Just sayin.
http://themidnightsolution.blogspot.com/2008/12...
So when do you plan to boycott her show?
Pat was on Rachel's show on those occasions because she INVITED him on.
Why does she have a homophobe on her show every night?
The other 20% make up the extreme right and the extreme left.
How dare Jon Stewart give such a homophobic bigot carte blanc to his TV show. Time to boycott him as well.
Very few of posts John or Joe have posted in the past 24 hours have any semblance of logic.
Stewart did accuse Huckabee of homophobia. You should have watched more closely.
Obama invited Rick Warren to pray over his inauguration because deep down they agree that LGBT people should be marginalized, and Obama has the power to maintain that public policy.
Apples are that way, oranges are down aisle 2.
That it is NOT okay to be racist, anti-gay, etc, but the more you exclude them, pretend they don't exist the more power you give to them. ALWAYS. Not saying embrace them, though that also might work, but the more you rankle the more they rankle, it's maybe not so dumb at all this.
I'm not gay, but I support totally gay-rights.I can't tell you to "take it easy and see" or not to feel what you feel but I also am not jewish, but my heart practically explodes when I have seen, read, the Holocaust, and visited Aushwitz and just...feel for what happened. But I also see Israel treating palestinians as "vermin" and with the same hate, and you see where refusing to talk goes.
There is something other than the kind of opposition that only escalates things, one that is firm, steady, right, and that can possibly turn minds around when not treated like terrible people for misguided beliefs.
Just a thought.
Here's what I learned from the gospels:
Governments execute innocent people.
Obama's administration will be no better.
Giving Warren the opening spot sets the tone for the entire proceedings and it's not a good tone.
And to all the closet homphobes going on about "hissy fits" and "hysterical reactions" -- fuck you.
I don't understand this hold Warren has over Obama.
If Obama had any loyalty or principles, he would have picked Wright. His choice of Warren speaks volumes.
.Now Obama is going to have PLENTY of opposition from the far right that will be ready and waiting to try to tear him down and make him fail. It was Limbaugh after all who said let the games begin. Ok, now laying all this out and once more reminding everyone that ANY Democrat has a very powerful and rabid opposition ready to put partisanship first and country last, it certainly mystifies, saddens, and angers me, all at the same time that we on the left are going to be the left flank in attacking Obama while the right wing flank will be doing their best on the other side.
Now honestly..... tell me that anyone complaining about these bigots actually thinks that Obama actually agrees with them. Also, honestly tell me that Obama would enjoy the goodwill he endeared among states and regions that we've NEVER won, at least certainly not in my generation, if he suddenly and aggressively moves to the left. To me this complaining about the fact that some of these guys have made anti-gay comments is just complaining that he hasn't thumbed his nose at the less enlightened yet. Hate to break it to everyone here but most of these characters have made anti-gay comments, they've also made anti-Democrat comments, anti-liberal comments anti-feminist comments etc. etc.
To me it's Ok that Obama is surrounding himself with these cats. It doesn't make him like minded, it makes him somewhat inoculated for when he nudges this country to our way of thinking. Because again, hate to break it to you guys who are complaining but most people still aren't comfortable with gays the way we all are on the coasts and in more progressive parts of the country. That's not saying it's oK, it's just saying that work still needs to be done. And say inviting RuPaul and Rosie to speak at the inauguration instead of these guys isn't going to be the way to get there. It's small steps. Just like it was small steps thru several generations that got Obama to where a black man could actually call himself President.
So frankly, I'm willing to cut Obama some slack. Seeing as how I'm sure he isn't some loathsome bigot, Since i'm sure the loathsome bigots who wouldn't be caught dead with Obama are gearing up to ensure he fails in actually opening doors for gays, blacks, women, Latino's etc. So I don't think he needs any more enemies that he already has tailor made for him already.
I'm not sitting down. I'm not shutting up. If his actions make me an enemy, that's his f#cking problem as he'll have caused it.
And MLK I suppose was a sit down shut up kinda guy as opposed to say Malcolm X, the Weathermen, and the SLA who of course were the ones who made great strides.
Believe it or not it's good when the left (of which I am a proud member) raises hell and outrage over Rick Warren's gay opinions.
It moves the dialogue one more inch to the left. Thus making Obama more able to move policy one more inch to the left.
When Clinton was elected gays in the military was a huge deal.
If Obama is in the media taking a ton of flack from the left for this Warren thing (which is 100% symbolism and matters not one iota to the quest for rights in a tangible sense) then he's seen as being moderate.
When Obama ends don't ask don't tell and increases real, actual, legal protections for gays and lesbians, he'll be seen as a "centrist" on the issue of gay rights. He can't do much at all about gay marriage most likely. But he can do a lot.
Take a page from the republican playbook. Our job here, as left wing activists is to scream when he does this kind of thing. Move the poles, so the center moves with them. If you want to reduce the capital gains tax call for its elimination. Then halving it (which happened) seems moderate.
If you want to advance gay rights then raise bloody hell right now about Rick Warren. That moves the argument. That's our job in the grassroots. Keep at it. The racism comparision (this post) is spurious in my opinion, but in general nobody's telling you to sit down and shut up. Keep fighting. But fight to move the debate and force the country to our side. Don't just get in a circular firing squad.
As I posted below, I bet Obama will be the most progressive president we've ever had on gay rights by a wide margin. I found it completely heartening that he has never been scared to actually look people in the eye and say he supports gay and lesbian equality.
Scream about the pastor. But not because the pastor matters, because it's what the grassroots is for. But keep your eyes on the prize.
If Obama can agree to talk to Ajamediwhatever from Iran, who doesn't believe the Holocast happened, why can't someone who differs on gay rights give a prayer at the inaugeration? I fully support gay rights, but you guys are going over the edge on this one.
Every group is not going to get everything they want. He's trying to please alot of people, which I think is a good thing. Flame away!
I disagree completely with Rick Warren on this and many other issues; I think he's bastardizing my religion, in fact. He wouldn't have been my choice for the invocation. But I can understand the need to make this inauguration about something larger than the issues, even if one of those issues is as profound as the civil rights for a group (mine) that has yet to have them. So for that, I'm thinking the protest is missing the forest for some of the (albeit important) trees. Let's have our fights over legislation and policy, not over who gets to say the invocation at an inauguration. Focusing on the latter only makes the former seem petty by association.
Didn't say it was the norm, I said it happened.
And BTW not everyone from West Virginia are hillbillies. That's a stereotype that shouldn't be entering your progressive mind.
My guess is that the percent of any population that is bigoted within any group is more or less equal. What is not equal is the power structure.
Rick Warren sez:
- Gay marriage is morally equivalent to allowing brothers and sisters to marry.
BUT
- He supports partnership rights for gays including insurance and visitation benefits.
_____________________________
Rick thy name is hypocrite.
4 posted on Monday, 15 December, 2008 10:51:45 by bmwcyle (McCain had no honor when he failed to defend Sarah Palin, Leno was not enough)
___________________________
My church did that 40 Days of Purpose crap a couple of years ago, and then did the 40 Days of Community (which I called 40 days of communism, pissing off more than a few friends and my parents as well). All I can say is I dropped out of church for about two months, until the normal preaching of God’s true Holy word, not a bunch of socialist liberal bulls**t, returned.
19 posted on Wednesday, 17 December, 2008 10:51:35 by Captain_Guts (Thy will be done!!!)
________________________________
False prophet...beware
22 posted on Thursday, 18 December, 2008 8:25:04 by Guenevere
_______________________________
Of course this site, which 10 years ago was a conservative site and has now become a No Nothing Pride site, is full of people whose slogan seems to be "Everyone But Me and Thee".
My favorite was "I got weally WEALLY mad when my mommy and daddy agreed to help others! I hid under my bed for 2 MONTHS! I got THEM back!!!"
Children trying to act like adults are funny!
You should collect more and post it on Kos.
*** When liberals attack: Axelrod and Gibbs have to be smiling this morning with the news that gay-rights groups are angry that Obama has announced that conservative evangelical Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Why are they smiling? Because it never hurts -- at least when it comes to governing or running for re-election -- when you sometimes disappoint/anger your party’s interest groups (in this case, People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign). Just asking, but is anyone but People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign surprised that Rick Warren is going to give a prayer at the inauguration? Where was this outrage when Obama appeared at Warren’s Saddleback forum back in August? The difference may be that the forum came before Proposition 8 passed in California. As for the pure politics of this, when you look at the exit polls and see the large numbers of white evangelicals in swing states like North Carolina, Florida and Missouri, as well as emerging battlegrounds like Georgia and Texas, you'll understand what Obama's up to.
A: EVERY TIME HE TOUCHES HIS REFLECTION IN THE MIRROR.
He has the presidency and no longer needs us for anything, at least until the next election cycle where Barry will beg for cash to win a second term where he will "promise" that he will change things for the better.
We should learn our lesson here and now, never, ever support anyone who does not already possess a strong track record of fighting for equality for us all. A person who is unafraid to stand up to the expressed bigotry of the professional xtians.
Barry is not that person. Never will be that person. And all we can look forward to is a constant stream of donation requests so that Barry can make things right in his hoped for second term. Like that's going to happen.
It appears Obama embraced only the votes. Once gaining those, there was little reason to continue to appeal to that segment. It is a truism that countries/factions always 'honor' leverage above gratitude. Perhaps Obama presently perceives greater threat/leverage from the evangelicals than the gay community.
The empty rhetoric floated to explain this shoe-to-the-head by Obama is consistent with his equally empty bromides excusing his telecom immunity concession. Glenn Greenwald points out how Warren plays the Pat Robertson card and urges assassination of a foreign leader. This is anything but an individual who qualifies as a symbol of Obama's vaunted "Inclusivity." This is apparently nothing more than a craven political calculation, the type that Obama was supposed to reform.
The sparkle is wearing off rather quickly.
Obama's claim to "forthright and strong support" of this or that issue is obviously no guarantee that his actions will match his words. However, to cite the very source of these contradictions as some sort of final authority, as you have done by recommending Obama's own website in answer to Obama's own apparent betrayals, seems to more appropriately fit the definition of 'clueless.'
Evidently, the black community, Obama included in this case, and as evidenced in California over Prop 8, have one huge, collective blindspot when it comes to regarding gay rights as part and parcel of civil rights.
They need to be educated.
I agree with this as well as John's overall post.
This is not a left/right issue. It's a civil rights issue and Obama is on the wrong side of it.
By inviting Rick Warren, Obama is basically validating homophobia and bigotry.
Simple as that. It has nothing to do with a difference of opinion or 'disagreeing without being disagreeable'.
Rather, it has everything to do with espousing hatred, division, exclusion and denying basic human rights to individuals who are 'different' from them.
Sad. Very sad.
And one need not be gay to 'get' that.
While governing from an ideological pure standpoint sure sounds noble and bold, what it ultimately gets you, if you're gonna use Bush as an example, is a 29% approval rating.
Or if you wanna use Naderites as an example, it gets you 4% of the vote.
But on the plus side, it sure makes you feel all pure and squeaky though.
Saying gay people are child molesters and incestuous, that's something that only the ideologically pure would object to?
Right.
Nevermind the fact that more people of African descent die of AIDS every year than LGBT people. I am moving to the Castro District of San Francisco because I am tired of the verbal and physical threats made by gay hating AA people. Sorry, I can no longer take the hatred against me.
Buh bye... Enjoy beautiful bullet riddled Oakland.
So am I shocked that Barry hates gays. Not a bit. There is a term often used lately "Homopho-black" If the shoe fits, throw it!
I am black and gay.
In your world view, I don't exist. Thus while I am angry at Obama for what he has done with Warren.
I can find no home with white gays like you either in your racism.
A man with a community. That's me. I am starting to accept it. But peo like you are sad and the same as Obama in being blind.
I understand that the gay issue is the one being attacked by the religious front and although I understand there reasons for doing so, I disagree with it.
However, I don't get involved with the religious side of it nor do I get involved in the gay side of it. Why, because I as stated above, "equal rights for all".
The problem I do have however is the labels that you and the reglious side put to the cause. To me, both of you behave like children, right or wrong it doesn't matter to me. I do believe that life will gone on and you are on the right side of what is proper in this world and the so called christian leadership is wrong. You will prevail this I know. I just hope when you do, you will not show or be the bigot you so dislike now>
A lot of them are on this thread, I think.
But it is a fact, like it or not, that in the eyes of probably the majority of Americans, Gay DOES NOT equal Black/Jewish/Hispanic, or even disabled. It might be for religous reasons, it might be for social reasons, it might even just be a feeling in their gut. It's hard to define why, though if allowed to extrapolate sufficiently, many if not all could come up with a cogent reason-or at least cogent in thier eyes, I am sure that many of you here would disagree.
And I confess that I am one of them. Except for a very few nut cases, no one thinks you should get beat up or killed or abused or whatever because of what you do behind closed doors, but many (most?) Americans just see homosexuality as having a component of choice and/or morality.
I have worked with and among gays for years. I have promoted them when they excelled, fired them when they wouldn't work, got along with them just fine in almost every case. I don't "Hate" anyone. But I unashameadly am against gay marriage and gay adoption, and have and will exersize my right to vote to restrict those priveleges to heterosexuals only, no matter what their race, ehtnicity, creed, or color. It's just not the same.
Flame away.
And yeah, until we surmount the fact that most people think that homosexuality is some choice, you're going to find this issue at an impasse among most Americans of ANY race or religious affiliation.
When people like you took away the rights of gays to marry in California, it impacted me, a straight unmarried man rasining two sons. Having the right to marry when others do not because they are not like me makes me ashamed to be an American.
You have every right to be a bigot. But you crossed the line when you took away peoples rights because of your bigotry.
Enjoy.
Why don't you just post at the top of your site, 'FOR GAYS ONLY."
FUCK YOU! and excusing yourself by saying you are okay with gay marriage is the same as saying I am not racist if I have black friends.. It's BS and you know it.
Again, very unhealthy.
Democrats: Live and Let Live. -- Republicans: You'll do it MY WAY or else.
When your rights are striped away, and you are treated as a second class citizen I will remind you of that comment... UNtil then shut the fuck up
YOU ARE FORGETTING THAT OBAMA ISN'T PLAYING IT THE WAY TO YOU'RE USED TO THE GAME NOR THE WAY BUSH PLAYED IT. HE IS PRESIDENT FOR ALL EVEN THOSE HE DOESN'T SHARE VIEWS WITH. HE RESPECTS EVERYONE AND THEIR VIEWS EVEN IF IT DIFFERS.
IT'S A LITTLE REFRESHING AND DIFFERENT FROM THESE LAST 8 YEARS. HE IS NOT GOING TO CATER TO YOUR ASS JUST BECAUSE YOU BOTH ARE DEMOCRATS.
GROW THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!!!
Stay away from my blog and stop screaming.
BUT put it in perspective. Obama did not cause it to happen AND he is not your enemy. Beating up on him when he is making major decisions about the next 4 years up to his eyeballs in the horrid mess that once was our nation is overboard and totally unfair.
OK he picked someone for a couple minutes of prayer--probably not a good pick-- BUT IT IS NOT like he picked him for his cabinet or to make major decisions.
If anyone knows about rights being given then taken away--he totally has been there also.
So you would have no objections to replacing Warren with Bishop Gene Robinson? It's just a couple minutes of prayer.
Just so you know I am black, and my descendents were slaves, were any of your descendents slaves, my parents lived through segregation are gays currently living in segregation, well no they aren't. S fuck you, you little bitch Obama is going to be a great president. YOU LITTLE FUCKIN BITCH.
Actually, gays had to hide for decades and not let people know that they were gay at the risk of being killed, arrested, or beaten. Gays still have to be very careful about who they are "out" to, even in their own neighborhoods, on the job, with clients, etc. This IS a form of segregation.
As for your argument that if one group is more oppressed than another, then the less oppressed group doesn't have the same right to civil rights and benefits as the other group is absurd. Otherwise, this would mean that in comparison to Jewish people, blacks would have no right to civil rights, because 6 million Jews (and gays, I might add) were gassed and lived through the holocaust, and that actually was worse than slavery. And, by the way, you weren't a slave, so you didn't have it as hard as your descendants. Does that render you less deserving of civil rights?
Many groups have experienced, lived through and had to overcome discrimination and being treated as second class citizens. The Irish, for example, and many, many others. Women are still struggling with second class status, discrimination and oppression. So please, grow up and recognize that you are not alone. And that you don't have the right to treat others with the disrespect you do.
Who's that?
Homsexuals do some things that some people think are wrong. So do smokers and people who eat meat. Some of us can distinguish between the sinner and the sin. It's people who can't make that distinction that scare me. I know lots of conservatives that love gay people but oppose gay marriage and think that homsexual acts are wrong. This is not bigotry!
I hasten to add -- because some non-logician among us is sure to start whining with this tired non sequitur if I don't -- that just because someone is wired a particular way doesn't make it right. That's where the religious right is most offensive in comparing gays and lesbians to incestuous lovers and pedophiles; it's like they skipped all their classes on Venn diagrams but still feel able to cite the subject because they at least enrolled. There's real "communion of spirit" between two consenting adults who "forsake all others," regardless of their gender. Incest and pedophilia are damaging to the familial relationships, to any progeny that might result (hello, hemophilia, among other things!), and particularly to the victim in the case of pedophilia. A committed homosexual relationship (including said "homsexual acts") is natural and affirming for those who are homosexual. Incest and pedophilia are neither for neither participant.
Thank you for your reply. Please also see my response to CL38 above.
I'm glad to see that we agree about incest and pedophilia. These things are morally wrong, and for reasons that do not apply to homosexuality. Now, please do not get mad at me for what I am about to say. I do not intend to equate homosexuality with bestiality. But what about bestiality? Is it wrong, and if so, why? What if the animal and the person are both "into it". What if they are both "wired that way". What if both are tested to rule out the possibility of transferring any diseases? Then is it ok?
If not, then why not?
There are, probably, at least three distinctions in the whole discussion of sexuality (which could even include dispassionate discussions of things like incest and pedophilia and bestiality): what is natural, what is moral in the human sense (that those who adhere to no religious faith and those who do would generally agree is immoral, such as murder), and what is moral in the religious sense, as set forth by religious authority or spiritual practice. Starting with the first, there are very, very few examples of cross-species intercourse, whether it involves humans or not. Whereas there are many examples of homosexuality, for example, in the animal world as well as the human world, since the dawn of recorded history. Moving to the human morality sphere, this has varied at different times. While murder has generally been agreed to be immoral by all societies, others have made exceptions for murder of non-tribal members (e.g., war) and others for self-murder (suicide). However, in almost no case have human societies held that sex between species is moral. For one thing, it serves no purpose OTHER than sex, and maybe this is colored as miuch by the religious view of morality as the natural or human view, but sex for its own sake (rather than an expression of love between two otherwise unrelated people, or for the procreation of children) has generally not had a good track record in history, and therefore has been largely condemned by both the religious and atheist alike, to varying degrees. Finally, the religious view of course can vary even more widely. Unitarians, some Christian denominations (or churches within denominations), and some synagogues will marry two people of the same gender. Many (at this time, most) others won't. But none would marry a man and a goat.
The question you're asking has both moral implications (human/religious) and scientific (natural). But one point of evidence seems a more powerful proofpoint in this regard than any other: there are far, far more examples of men and women who have led lives of inner shame and self-destruction by denying the truth of their natural homosexuality than there are of cases who, in accepting it, went on to lead productive, creative lives in a loving relationship -- or even in celibacy, if that is their calling. There are not such cases that I'm aware of someone going on to lead a productive, creative life in a loving relationship by entering into a sexual relationship with an animal.
Another comparison that's been made (wrongly) is between homosexuality and alcoholism. It's usually said, "Some people are wired to be alcoholics. Why isn't this okay for them to indulge how they're wired if it's okay for homosexuals to do so?" Alcoholism is almost always damaging to relationships, health (physical and emotional), and self-control. By contrast, attempting to live in DENIAL of one's homosexuality is generally more likely to damage relationships, health (because sex becomes anonymous, transitory, and unrelated to a relationship) and, if profligate (with many partners), self-control. There are debates on this within the gay community, actually -- some think marriage is a "hetero-normative" construct, and therefore shouldn't apply to gay people anyway. But the people pushing for gay marriage obviously are advocating commitment between two people, NOT the practice of having sex with multiple partners. You'd think even religious conservatives would find this something they could get behind, but unfortunately, they'd rather have their gays be promiscuous than in committed relationships, with the support of society and government to further and deepen those relationships.
I'm not "into" bestiality, so at some level I obviously have a bias against it. Someone who is in favor of it would need to make a case for it for it to get a hearing. However, I haven't heard anyone do that -- and in fact all the people who bring it up do so as a purely theoretical -- and thus, largely irrelevant -- question (such as yours...I assume it was theoretical!) or, worse, to create an unsavory analogy in most people's minds.
But I do not wish to appeal only to tradition. My reason for bringing up bestiality was to find out whether you believe that there are any moral limits on consensual sexual behavior apart from concerns about health. Is there such thing as human dignity, and if so, is it possible to commit sexual acts which would violate that dignity? I believe that bestiality is a clear example of a violation of human dignity. Men and animals were not made for each other in that way. An animal is a poor substitute for a woman.
To a much lesser extent, I believe that homosexual acts also violate the dignity of the people involved. This is because I believe that there is a natural complimentarity between the sexes. There are special intellectual, emotional, physical and spiritual gifts possessed by women that another man simply cannot offer to his partner (and vice- versa). By refusing these gifts, the homosexual couple denies the special dignity of the opposite sex, and in doing so, they deny themselves something good while accepting only a partial substitute. Instead of Yin and Yang in harmony, you have Yin-Yin or Yang-Yang. Better than Yin-Camel, to be sure, but not ideal.
Sin is not always choosing evil. In fact, most people would never choose pure evil because it is repulsive. Sometimes sin is settling for a lesser good (or over-indulging in a lesser good, such as food).
These are my moral beliefs, and I do not wish to impose them on anybody. I only wish to be allowed to express them, especially when a friend or family member is engaging in behavior that I believe is self-destructive. Love, after all, speaks the truth (as it is understood). This may be ignorance, but it is certainly not bigotry.
Well, that's the nub of it, isn't it? I don't believe that -- and in fact, as found in both humans and animals, sometimes there ISN'T a natural complimentarity between the sexes. In fact -- to return to the religious argument for a moment -- the only time Jesus actually addressed sexuality at all he specifically states that not everyone is heterosexual. (He didn't, of course, go through a laundry list of other options, probably because as the earth-bound Jesus in first-century Palestine, there wasn't an understanding of homosexuality as we now understand it, only as a Roman practice among otherwise heterosexual men or in temple prostitution.) But in the Gospel of Matthew he is quoted as saying: "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."
This doesn't overtly address the issue of homosexuality, obviously, from a religious angle -- if it did, Rick Warren might not be so convinced in his beliefs and opinions on the subject. But it certainly does show that there is nothing inherently preferential or "Christian" about heterosexuality from Jesus' perspective -- "for there are eunuchs who have been so from birth."
We may have to agree to disagree on the morality or immorality of homosexual acts. My main hope was to show that it is possible to have reasons other than hatred or fear for opposing gay marriage. I apologize if I've said anything offensive, and thank you for treating me as a person worthy of engaging in discussion despite our disagreement.
As I've said before, I do not want to deny anybody their rights. But I believe that gay marriage advocates are going beyond rights and asking for approval and subsidy. I think that it would be a violation of my rights if they used government to force me to provide either.
I anticipate that you may object to being forced by the government to subsidize my heterosexual marriage with your tax dollars. If you have any strong moral objections to heterosexual marriage, then you should voice them. If you can convince a majority in our democracy that we shouldn't be subsidizing heterosexual marriage, then I would be happy to let all marriage be an entirely private affair and leave government out of it. Nobody should be forced to violate their conscience. Unfortunately, this sometimes happens to the minority in a democracy - and it is a kind of tyranny.
This is one of the reasons that I think small-government libertarianism is morally superior. The less government does, the less it discriminates and the less it violates personal freedom.
You are making judgments that gays are "less than" and "inferior to" you. And you are making judgments that gays don't have the right to love, be with or marry the person of their choice, and further, that they shouldn't have the same right to acceptance, normality and benefits in society, including marriage, that you and your "heterosexual" family and friends have. THAT is bigotry and discrimination.
I do not think that gays are "less than" or "inferior" to me. I believe that I am a worse sinner than most of the gays that I have known - mostly very kind and generous people. And I don't want to deprive them of their rights to have sexual relationships, make commitments, have ceremonies, live together, and even call this relationship "marriage" if they like. Gays already have these rights, and no one should be allowed to deprive them of their rights. But you are going beyond rights and asking for approval and for benefits. You are asking me to approve of and to subsidize something that violates my conscience. Worse, you seem to believe that the government should force me to do so.
It's entirely possible that I am wrong about this (the morality of gay sex). If so, then it is your job to use reason to try to convince me.
We live in a diverse world (thank God). If we are all going to get along, then we are going to have to practice tolerance. Tolerance doesn't mean forcing everyone else to agree with you.
It's easy to tell...one good example is their bad spelling.
I do not want to deny anybody their rights. Please see my responses to CL38 and DAB below if you care to understand where I'm coming from.
Stop acting like Ralph Nader, show some calm dignity, and you will get what you want soon. I believe this. On the other hand, if you insist on throwing a temper tandrum over every perceived slight, you won't. Because the overwhelming majority of Obama supporters are not going to help you turn the country back over to the Repubicans.
I hope that Obama will, in the future, take these things into consideration. I hope he will also very quickly make a point of inviting a prominent gays to the table to show balance. Obama needs to reach out to the gay community simultaneously.
Let's see...Bill O'Reilly, Rupert Murdoch, Fox News reporters, the Clintons, Pennsylvania/West VA voters, Wall St, John McCain, President Bush, Rev. Wright...so on and so forth.
I wonder if Obama is setting up Warren for some kinda trap. This could be a chance to publicly rebuke Warren in front of a captive audience.
Obama is just a cog in the Daley machine. He's a Chicago politician. He needs the Rick Warren congregations more than he needs GLBT people. His pragmatic approach is effective. No time to worry about the little guys and girls.
First off, back off trying to equate getting a marriage certificate to the civil rights struggle to gain basic human rights of Jewish and Black people. That crass and idiotic conflation is probably what got Prop 8 defeated in California with AA vote margin.
And btw, Mr. Bigot? gay men and women are being killed, bashed, fired from their jobs and evicted from their homes because they are gay. They are also dying due to a worldwide pandemic the government purposely allowed to rage while 2,000,000 Americans were infected under Reagan.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT A MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE! THIS IS ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL RIGHTS TO LIVE IN PEACE, MARRY THE PERSON WE LOVE, AND NOT BE HUNTED DOWN LIKE DOGS AND BEATEN IN THE STREEST BY BIGOTS LIKE YOU WHO THINK YOUR RIGHTS ARE SOMEHOW MORE IMPORTANT THAN MINE!
Can an Ethiopian change his skin, or a leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that is accustomed to do evil. (Jeremiah 13:23)
Right now we have a nation (and one could argue, a world) descending into a state of disaster on many fronts, because of George Bush. Meanwhile, you're threatening to pull your support away from Obama because you don't want just the rights of marriage, you want the word "marriage." Swallow your pride for now, and help us deal with the real tragedies going on right now.
Our concerns are not ephemeral - the gay holocaust continues unabated. Gay men are bashed every day of the week and killed by those fired up on the hatred and bigotry of the Rick Warren's of this world ...
So pardon me while I try to save my life and the lives of my friends and family and children before i start worrying about General Motors