Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Let me refrain to post 14 on this thread. I think markymouse offered up a few suggestions. <<Oh, please! The Episcopelians chose a gay man to be bishop of New Hampshire. The United Church of Christ voted as a denomination to endorse same sex marriage. There are pro-gay clergy in almost every mainstream denomination. It is so frustrating that people equate the religious with the religious right.>>
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Yes, nothing says unified Peace more than.... <<Warren’s spokeswoman did not respond to a message seeking comment, but he has tried to blend personal tolerance with doctrinal disapproval of homosexuality. “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. In the same interview, he compared the “redefiniton of a marrige” to include gay marriage to legitimizing incest, child abuse, and polygamy.>> Nice guy <sarcasm> <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16693.html" target="_blank">http://www.politico.com/news/s...693.html</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Allow me to play devil's advocate here. Does anyone think, even for a moment, that by selecting Warren Obama has purposely subjected him to a kind of scrutiny Warren has never endured before, thereby either marginalizing him for the future or possibly enlightening him going forward? Ya never know......
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^^ kind of like I said in the other thread. Lethimbeout there unfiltered and let Joe Citizenformhis opinion....why not ? That way no one can blame the media or the far left/right -- it's a chance for this guy to show what he has over the next few weeks. What could be smarter than that ? You take anyonewho may be an 'extremist' and give themalarger stage for a period oftime, and that idiot part will come out- sure as heck. keep him away - and their less adamant supporters become more entrenched.
Originally Posted By barboy ///It's very cool that he's inviting an OUT gay marching band to participate/// ---only if they march well. If they were chosen because they are attracted to their own kind then that's not cool in the slightest. Invites should be based on merit alone and not whether one has multi wives or whether Adam loves Steve or Eve. ///If the band is lucky, they'll be sandwiched between the Boy Scouts and the Firefighters/// ---so harassment can go down again like in San Diego? Did you know that some of those fire personnel in SD felt embarrassed and belittled? It's positions like yours I-57 that hurt your own cause.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom You reward "good" people ( Heroes ) by granting them to opportunity to participate in a once in a lifetime only Presidential inaguration. You do not reward religious nutcases who have absolutely no vision of a pluralistic society. Rick Warren is no hero. He's all about exclusion and forcing "his" religious ideology on others by using law when necessary. Nothing like religious tryanny.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Rick Warren is no hero/// I agree, and neither is Obama himself nor the vast majority of attendees. There might be several 'heros' for the inaguration by dictionary rules but not by mine. A hero is one who is wholly selfless and will sacrifice her life or freedom for another.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>If they were chosen because they are attracted to their own kind then that's not cool in the slightest. Invites should be based on merit alone and not whether one has multi wives or whether Adam loves Steve or Eve.<< And the Boy Scouts were invited because they're the best? Or the Native Americans? Or the Border Patrol Noble Mustang Mounted Unit? Or the veterans groups? No, it's all about tokenism. Nothing new or surprising there. What's new is that the gays have graduated to the point of being a special interest on a par with everybody else.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***And, ok, X, I'll bite. In "considering the utter contempt and bigotry they consistently demonstrate." does the "they" refer to the clergy or the gays and lesbians?*** The clergy, obviously. And Marky, you can take that chip on your shoulder and your anger issues someplace else. My unwavering support of gay rights is well documented here.
Originally Posted By barboy ---very worthy response alexbook and you might have me stymied; but I'm not ready to concede just yet anyway-- let me get some dinner first and then I'll try to get back to you(but it will be a challenge to trump your #28).
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<What's new is that the gays have graduated to the point of being a special interest on a par with everybody else.>> I disagree. I don't see anything new here. Its pander to what every crowd you "need" at the time. Obama needed groups like gays to get elected ( so did Bill Clinton ). It appears that Obama is quick to dismiss gays at his inauguration. So far we know that a leader of an Evangelical church will play a prominent role at the inauguration and the gays are delegated to being part of the entertainment ( as usual). I am not aware of any gay individual or organization playing a prominent role during this inauguration. I really don't see this as an advancement for gays rights. Gays still continue to be kept "on the back of the bus". And meanwhile we are expected to believe that this is an attempt on Obama's part to be all Mavericky. I don't buy it.
Originally Posted By markymouse At the risk of running a one on one conversation that's getting off subject: X, I might have to pass on your request to take the chip on my shoulder elsewhere, as said chip is my whole reason for posting for the last couple of days. Absolutely, you've been very supportive of gay rights on these threads. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. What I meant was more that the ambiguity of your statement - apparently through no intention of your own - pointed to a problem that has been brewing for months - that gays and lesbians, champions of tolerance, may well be becoming increasingly intolerant because we are so bruised by Prop 8. I have friends in another state who are straight but very pro-gay. They used to keep a printout of supporters of various anti-gay ballot measures, to make sure they never shopped at their stores, stayed at their hotels, etc. That struck me as intolerant. We're allowed to disagree. A minister can disagree with me on a few things, but still have something valid to say. But since Prop 8, I have been feeling less and less tolerant of that kind of thinking. That you might be subconsciously addressing that growing intolerance on the part of some gays seemed possible. That you might be hinting at it as a humorous jab seemed likely. That you had unintentionally reminded me of that concern seems to have been the case. OK. Back to the thread.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***What I meant was more that the ambiguity of your statement - apparently through no intention of your own - pointed to a problem that has been brewing for months - that gays and lesbians, champions of tolerance, may well be becoming increasingly intolerant*** Well, I'm glad you realize my take on things..I was just surprised by the question given everything else I've said (and compared to other issues, have been remarkably consistent with lol), and I got the impression that in your anger you were looking to lash out at anyone you could find a problem with. But anyway, yeah...I would not be surprised if some gays and lesbians were less tolerant after the way they've been treated. I wouldn't blame them, either.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***That you might be subconsciously addressing that growing intolerance on the part of some gays seemed possible. That you might be hinting at it as a humorous jab seemed likely. That you had unintentionally reminded me of that concern seems to have been the case.*** Pretty much, yeah. Anyway, in terms of intolerance and bigotry the gay community would have a LONG way to go in order to catch up to the evangelical types. ;p
Originally Posted By mawnck >>gays and lesbians, champions of tolerance, may well be becoming increasingly intolerant<< That's my whole opinion, right there. I would've gladly marched beside No on 8 supporters before the election, and immediately after it. Not anymore. Not until they calm down and start thinking with their heads again.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster Calm down everyone. Take your place in the back of the bus quietly and don't raise your objections too loudly or, well, you'll just have to stay back there longer. Stay calm. Accept your inferiority because your protests are a little too unsettling. Calm down and relax because the people who enjoy their freedom are bothered by your cries of injustice. The laws are fine for most of us so just be quiet. Be calm becasue if you annoy us we're never going to listen to you. Some day we'll get around to granting you equality so just pipe down. Just be glad we're letting you on the bus at all....
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom ChurroMonster you forgot to mention that if only gay people went away then so would the problem. You see inequality and intolerance isn't the problem its gay people that are the problem. <sarcasm> When will society stop blaming us for mentioning the "elephant in the middle of the room"?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Oh and interms of gay folk in the Presidental Inaugurational Parade, allways a bridesmaid and never a bride. Back to being delegated the entertainment.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>When will society stop blaming us for mentioning the "elephant in the middle of the room"?<< I dunno ... maybe when you can talk about him without jumping up and down and screaming.
