So was it worth alienating gays for that?
That prayer/speech/thingie? I don’t think so.
That prayer/speech/thingie? I don’t think so.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 20th, 2009 at 11:55 am and is filed under Domestic Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Design by Sunaryo Hadi. A Couple Things is proudly powered by
WordPress
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
29 queries. 0.842 seconds.
January 20th, 2009 11:57
What are you talking about here in this post?
January 20th, 2009 11:57
Inauguration Thread…
apparently BHO thought so…
boy he looks really calm and serious today…
Should it be any other way?……
January 20th, 2009 11:58
You know, the uber-conservative preacher dude that just did the prayer. The gay-hater guy.
January 20th, 2009 12:00
You sound like Rush Limbaugh right now (in expression, not in ideology). Are you proud of that?
January 20th, 2009 12:01
LOL, who do I want to fail?
Seriously, did you think that was a great prayer?
January 20th, 2009 12:05
I think it was a prayer, Scholar. I didn’t realize the purpose of prayer was to impress people. I’m pretty sure it came out of your mouth that partisanship should be abandoned and everyone should come together to celebrate this historic day….hmmm, having trouble following your own advice?
January 20th, 2009 12:06
It would have been a nice prayer if it didn’t come from a gay-hater. Just sayin’.
January 20th, 2009 12:08
Once again, you are behaving like a Rush Limbaugh type character. Nice job.
And clearly you haven’t abandoned partisanship today…again, nice job.
January 20th, 2009 12:08
Today is a great day for our country. GREAT DAY.
January 20th, 2009 12:10
But admit it, you don’t want to share it with those who don’t agree with you, like Rick Warren (yup, he has a name).
January 20th, 2009 12:11
You have it the other way around. I don’t think gay-haters should be giving speeches during our great celebration day of America.
Would it have been too much to ask for someone who didn’t alienate a large segment of the population?
Just sayin’.
January 20th, 2009 12:14
A Rush Limbaugh type would label him a gay-hater (a rational person would say he opposes gay marriage). And you have this day all wrong. Obama promised more than just running out people who agree with your politics…he’s promised an inclusive government of all different ideologies. Rick Warren was a nice start.
January 20th, 2009 12:15
He’s a homophobe gay-hating douchebag.
But I’m over it. Obama has inspired me. We’re going to rebuild America, baby.
January 20th, 2009 12:20
Then admit it, you are incapable of being bi-partisan, even when you call others to be.
January 20th, 2009 12:20
It’s not partisan to call a gay-hater a gay-hater. It’s called being real.
January 20th, 2009 12:24
Again, Mr. Limbaugh of the left, you are calling him a partisan name, not what he is, which is someone opposed to gay marriage. You are putting your own partisan spin on Rick Warren and on his presence at the inauguration. But please, let me know what you think of all the other prayers that will be said today; surely you’ll analyze them with the same sort of scrutiny.
January 20th, 2009 12:25
So you’re saying he doesn’t hate gays?
January 20th, 2009 12:29
I doubt that he hates gays, but I’m not going to pretend I know, like a crazy leftist like you would.
January 20th, 2009 12:31
I am sad that yankees fan supports men that hate gays like myslef.
January 20th, 2009 12:32
Well he certainly believes he’s not a gay-hater. He gives them donuts.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/rick-warren-i-dont-hate-g_n_152157.html
January 20th, 2009 12:33
Tenant, I too think it is sad that we have a gay-hater giving speeches at the inauguration. But we should celebrate today. Less gay haters are in power now.
January 20th, 2009 12:33
See previous posts to debunk your claim that Rick Warren hates gays, but if you won’t accept that..so does your President, Tenant. Boo Hoo.
January 20th, 2009 12:33
Forget that, we must never give up against homophobes!!!!
January 20th, 2009 12:34
Forget that, we must never give up against homophobes,
January 20th, 2009 12:34
Are u gay, YF?
January 20th, 2009 12:37
Why would it matter to the conversation Tenant? Do you support a President who does not believe in gay marriage, because that is where Obama and Biden currently stand.
January 20th, 2009 12:38
If u are not gay then how dare u speak on who does and do not hate us?
Is it not enough that I feel hatred upon me by pastor warren?
January 20th, 2009 12:39
Obama is far better for us gays than mccain.
January 20th, 2009 12:40
You are trying to speak for the heart and mind of Pastor Warren. You feel hated on, and I think you have every reason to…but that does not mean that Pastor Warren hates the gays.
January 20th, 2009 12:41
If I feel that he hates us, is that not enough?
January 20th, 2009 12:42
Tenant has made a very good point here. The issue is not so much whether or not Warren actually does hate gays (although I, and tenant apparently, think that he does). The issue is whether or not we needed someone who is alienating to give the prayer.
If gays perceive hatred from Warren, is that not a reason to pick someone else?
Thanks for chiming in, Tenant.
January 20th, 2009 12:43
Than you!!!
January 20th, 2009 12:45
No, I think that is terribly problematic. And a big difference between liberals and conservatives. It was by this logic that musical chairs has been banned from elementary schools in the east coast. Feeling bad is not a reason to eliminate an entire dialogue, #1, and there was no dialogue here, it was a prayer, #2.
January 20th, 2009 12:46
Obama at least recognizes that political disagreements do not make someone evil. Rick Warren is a very good pastor and pretty darn appropriate for the role he played in tihs inauguration.
January 20th, 2009 13:12
It’s not just about “feeling bad.” This is something the “compassionate conservatives” don’t get. It’s not like “oh, I feel bad that a gay-hater is making a speech.” It’s more like: “I feel alienated that our new president chose someone who hates me to give a speech.”
Yankees, you’d be ok with someone who hates Christians giving a speech at the inauguration?
January 20th, 2009 14:07
Scholar, do you mean someone like you, who so clearly hates Christians? I mean, I can feel the hatred coming from you. So the fact that I feel it must mean that it is true. Right? Your desire to censor a Christian pastor from speaking makes us feel excluded. It is intolerant. Even just saying that Pastor Warren should be banned from praying is intolerant anti-Christian hate-speech. Why do you want to alienate over a third of the population of the United States (Evangelical Chrisitans) on a day that is supposed to bring us all together? Why be so hateful?
January 20th, 2009 17:19
Word ambrs. That is the exact point. And as far as the alienation of the gay community, there was an openly homosexual minister offering prayer during the inauguration celebration as well…this is about Obama offering a united America and yet you, scholar, insist on ignoring the message your President is asking you to support.
January 20th, 2009 17:21
Ambrs, I got news for you, I am a Christian. So unless I’m self-loathing, I don’t know what to tell ya, sweetheart.
Although I will admit to not liking my fellow Christian gay-haters. I respect Christians who can keep their beliefs to themselves and out of the political process (like John Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts).
January 20th, 2009 17:26
I’m pretty sure any poster on this board can tell you aren’t self-loathing, scholar
But without making any assumptions as to what is in your heart, your postings don’t necessarily demonstrate an adherence to much of the Christian teachings, and I think that is to what ambrs is speaking.
January 20th, 2009 17:40
Are you kidding me? If your characterization of an “uber-conservative” dude is Rick Warren, then you need to come out of the cave (or closet, I guess. Don’t want to alienate anyone…).
Saying you think something someone does is wrong, immoral, and/or disgusting does not equate to hatred for the individual. It’s imbecilic of you to keep harping on that. I have a serious problem with homosexuality on several levels, but I don’t “hate” them for it. Hate the sin, not the sinner…
January 20th, 2009 17:47
Yankees, who is being less Christian:
Me, who is speaking out against hate.
OR
Warren, who is practicing hate.
What would Jesus say?
January 20th, 2009 17:52
Warren is not practicing hate…so that’s your first inaccuracy. What would Jesus say about Gay Marriage? I don’t know, but biblically speaking, he speaks of sexual morality. And you are practicing hate, you hate “gay-haters.”
January 20th, 2009 18:10
When did I say I hate them? I said I don’t like them. Not a very Christian thing to put words in the mouths of others, is it?
What did Jesus say about sexual morality?
January 20th, 2009 18:12
Aha! So there you go, it’s not a Christian thing to put words in your mouth, yet you will gladly conclude that Rick Warren hates the gays.
January 20th, 2009 18:15
There are more ways to hate than mere words, my Christian friend.
January 20th, 2009 18:17
Voting and campaigning against marriage isn’t one of them.
January 20th, 2009 18:57
Yankees, get a clue. Take the blinders off this guy campaigns against gay marriage because he hates gays!!!! Whhy else would he?
January 20th, 2009 18:57
I think christianity is worse than islam when it comes to hating people who are different!!!!
January 21st, 2009 08:30
Tenant, are you for real? He campaigns against gay marriage, #1 because he believes that homosexual intercourse is sexual immorality rooted biblically, and #2 because he wholeheartedly believes that the best thing for society is to encourage marriage only between a man and a woman. It’s possible that he would like you very much Tenant, despite your sexuality (although based on your posts, I’m not so sure about that).
January 21st, 2009 08:37
It is u sir, u chrisitan fundies that have ruined marriage. Divorce rate at 50 percent!!! Give us a chance to save marriage because it is already dying! U people killed it!
January 21st, 2009 09:22
Out of curiosity, are you aware of the case that ruled gay marriage in Massachusetts legal? It’s called Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. Any idea how the Goodridge marriage is doing?
You guessed it. Marriage is tough, gay or straight. So once again you look stupid, Tenant. But keep posting, this is fun.
January 21st, 2009 18:25
When me and my partner were choosing locations for our wedding, we considered MA!! Of course I know they have gay marriage.
Are u saying that you do not support or recognize my marriage???
January 21st, 2009 20:24
Sorry, I didn’t realize that I would have to really break this down for you. I was simply responding to the idea that gays would have to “save” marriage since so many heterosexual marriages end in divorce. I wanted to point out to you that the couple for whom the seminal case regarding gay marriage in Massachusetts was named, is already divorced. Thus, marriage is tough, regardless of whether it is between a man and a woman or a man and a man.
I most certainly would recognize your union….good luck to you.
January 21st, 2009 20:43
I didn’t ask about my union, I asked about my marriage!!!
January 21st, 2009 20:52
semantics, friend.
January 21st, 2009 21:55
Answer the question, “friend”!!!
January 21st, 2009 22:33
I did. I would support your union, marriage, whatever the heck you want to call it. You seem to think that a union and marriage are different from the view point of the state. Could you tell me the difference?
January 22nd, 2009 13:28
So why do u oppose gay marriage then u fundie??????
January 22nd, 2009 14:34
Are you even reading any of my posts? I feel like I’m posting to no one. Surely I am being punked by you…you can’t be this dumb, right?
In order to tell you whether or not I oppose gay marriage, we need to define what we are talking about. If you are talking about a state sanctioned union (just as I have a state sanctioned union as a heterosexual with my wife), then I absolutely am in favor of gay marriage. But you threw a fit before when I told you I supported your union. So one more time, I will try to ask you: In your eyes, is there a difference between a union and a marriage, and if so, could you tell me what that difference is?
January 22nd, 2009 14:38
p.s. Do you want me to start calling you a derogatory term for homosexual, because goodness knows there are a few? You can call me YF, Yankees, Yankees Fan, but fundie doesn’t work for me.
January 23rd, 2009 08:19
The point is that u get to decide whether or not my “union” can be considered a marriage! Why do u get that right? Why union and not marriage???
I will not call u Xtian fundie, but please pleaseO not use Xtian arguments on me!!
January 23rd, 2009 08:23
Oh and there is a difference between a union and marriage! A union is politics, city hall. A marriage is spiritual and communal!!! U know this, u are just trying to piss me off!
January 23rd, 2009 08:35
So frustrating! Ugh!
January 23rd, 2009 08:53
End marriage discrimination!!!
Why discriminate at all?
January 23rd, 2009 08:57
Yes!!!!! Finally!! You have admitted the difference between a union and a marriage!! The state has NOTHING to do with anything spiritual whatsoever. In the eyes of the state you simply have a contract with the other person that the state will recognize. That is ALL the Massachusetts court decided on, California, and Connecticut…STATE marriages, unions, whatever you call them, have NOTHING to do with a spirtual exercise (there is this important concept of separation of church and state that exists in this country). If you want a “spiritual” marriage, take it up with your church.
GAME, SET, MATCH. And these aren’t “fundie” arguments, these are Constitutional arguments.
January 23rd, 2009 13:15
Hello genius! Do not u think that CA got into spiritual arguments by claiming what is and is not a marriage??? That is spiritual! It is disxcrimination: your marriage is marriage; my marriage is a union. Just like blacvk waterfountains and white waterfountains!!!
Who is our rosa parks?
January 23rd, 2009 14:02
I, thankfully, haven’t really been part of this conversation, but it strikes me that Yankees fan is being a bit disingenuous here. The whole purpose of Prop-8 was to precisely define religion. You say it isn’t a state thing, it is a spiritual thing. Well, the state of California disagrees with you, Yankees. They’ve inserted themselves where they shouldn’t be.
I thought you agreed with this?
January 23rd, 2009 15:36
Yes scholar, precisely!!!
January 23rd, 2009 17:19
Thank you for re-entering the converation, Scholar, perhaps you can bring some sanity. We haven’t been discussing Prop-8, nor should we be. You and I both know that Prop-8 was a load of garbage and should be thrown out…so the fact that California disagrees with me is of no worry, because the people who voted misunderstand (as does Tenant) the purpose of marriage within a civil society. This is why referendum’s are less ideal than state legislative votes. Marriage is a contract between two individuals who will receive certain treatment from the state based on their fulfillment of this contract. Marriage is a spiritual committment between two people and God only from the perspective of the Church.
January 23rd, 2009 17:21
“Marriage is a spiritual committment between two people and God only from the perspective of the Church.”
You’ve still never really dealt with the inconvenient fact that marriage was around well before religion and Churches. Therefore I’m not sure how the Church can claim marriage for itself.
January 23rd, 2009 17:28
I’m not saying here that the church is claiming marriage for itself, i’m saying that the State is not claiming marriage in the same way as the Church – spirtually speaking. And for this reason, I don’t really see the difference between a union and a marriage. Tenant claims the only difference is that a marriage is spiritual whereas a union is not. Thus, I want to know why the state would sanction something spiritual (and the answer is that it doesn’t)
January 23rd, 2009 17:36
Hmm, I guess Tenant and I are arguing different things though. The one (and maybe only) comment he’s made recently that I agree with is that I do think there is marriage discrimination going on here. Do you agree? Whatever the base of marriage is, be it secular or spiritual, is it right for the state to determine who can and cannot take part in it? If the state is going to offer it, which they clearly do, then it seems to me that they can’t discriminate who takes part.
January 23rd, 2009 17:42
Absolutely, you and I agree 100%. The State cannot sponsor marriage and then hold it out to only part of the population. The reason I will continue to call it it a union for the purposes of Tenant, is because he claims that marriage is something spiritual, and that is not what the State is doing here. I have a union with my wife in the state where I live, why can’t Tenant be happy with having a union with his partner in the state where he lives (that is if it is only in Ma or Ct, sadly)?
January 23rd, 2009 18:20
My brain does not understand the position of dear YF. Marriage is for all or for none. We hang together, we die together!!
January 23rd, 2009 20:56
That does not surprise me.
January 24th, 2009 15:00
gh, there is no place for that on this board. please do not come back.
January 24th, 2009 15:04
I erased that message, it was disgraceful.
January 27th, 2009 09:39
Just cleaning things up a little bit here
February 4th, 2009 20:45
yes Ideas others than approved by perverts aren’t allowed. You’re a fascist.
February 4th, 2009 20:47
words are disgraceful? I think actions like anal sex are much more so. I can’t believe you’re afraid of words. as Obama says “they’re just words”