Gay Obamaniacs Punk’d, Part II
As a follow-up to AverageGayJoe’s posting from yesterday, I have a simple question.
Is there ANY American religious leader that would be acceptable to the Radical Gay Left to do an invocation?
Perhaps Rev. Wright? Maybe Father Pfleger?
I’ve got it! The Gays(TM) would love to have the Iraqi Shoe Guy give the prayer (in Arabic of course). That would be perfect for them — mixing rabid anti-American hatred with fashionable footwear.
*sigh*
I can almost hear Joe Solmonese whining voice as he complains about the choice of Rev. Warren…..
“Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans,†the president of Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solomonese, wrote Obama Wednesday. “[W]e feel a deep level of disrespect when one of architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination.â€
Waaaah, waaaah, waaaah. (And did he really say “blow”? *snicker*)
Did you Gay Leftists REALLY think Obama was going to carry your political water? In that case: how dumb you are.
[RELATED: James at The Skepticians agrees — Obama will probably sell out The Gays(TM) in no time]
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
UPDATE (JohnAGJ): Welcome, InstaPundit readers!!!
90 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
That would be perfect for them — mixing rabid anti-American hatred with fashionable footwear.
Bwah hah ha ha ha ha ha!
Here, Check This Out, an Obamunist Christmas Carol.
Comment by V the K — December 18, 2008 @ 8:03 am - December 18, 2008
I’m a Catholic.
I think what a lot of people do not understand is that all sexual activity that is not between a married man and woman – and fully open to conceiving a child – is considered to be gravely sinful (a mortal sin).
Masturbation is a grave sin. Using a condom or birth control are grave sins. Having sex outside of marriage is a grave sin. Same sex attraction is not a sin, but homosexual activity is a grave sin.
If I head off to the shower right now and spank the old tater I’ve just committed a sin as great as any homosexual sin.
Its a shame – really I find it bizarre – that so much attention is given to homosexuality as sinful when a very significant percentage of the congregation in any Catholic Mass are most likely right up to their eyeballs in sinful sexual behavior just as great in the eyes of God as anything homosexuals are involved in.
All that said, its just a prayer. This guy is going to get up there, ask God to bless our new president and say Amen and its going to be over. So I mean really, let’s all just get a grip, shall we?
Comment by Dwildered — December 18, 2008 @ 8:14 am - December 18, 2008
I also wonder if Andrew Sullivan will now turn on Obama the way he turned on Bush, or does he want to have Obama’s baby too badly for that?
Comment by V the K — December 18, 2008 @ 8:40 am - December 18, 2008
We said that if Obama were elected, he’d be throwing gays under the bus. And we were right!
(Hmm, that did not come out as ironically as I hoped. I had meant it as a play on Instapundit’s running joke, “They said that if Bush were re-elected, X-evil-thing would happen… and they were right!” and it turns out liberals were doing X-evil-thing.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2008 @ 9:00 am - December 18, 2008
A Genuine Blow?…
It was announced today in a statement from the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies that Reverend Rick Warren, author of “The Purpose Driven Life,†would deliver the invocation at Obama’s inaugural ceremony on January 20.
While Obama’s…
Trackback by The Skepticians — December 18, 2008 @ 9:16 am - December 18, 2008
My fantasy:
Rick Warren lets his Jeremiah Wright hair down and hurls Hell fire and brimstone. The MSM goes apoplectic, Bill Moyers has a stroke and the panel on The View tear Elizabeth Whatshername’s hair out in big patches on live TV.
But we know that Rick Warren will go all non-denominational, middle of the road, chicken soup and even drag Gaia and the solstice sisters in for good measure.
I wonder why Obama didn’t ask Dr. Phil or Deeppack Chopter to give a “sense of the moment” statement on rectitude, possibility, thoughtfulness and dental hygiene?
Comment by heliotrope — December 18, 2008 @ 9:48 am - December 18, 2008
He is sounding depressed-ish. Right Wing News has the details, if you click, then scroll down:
http://rightwingnews.com/#post13842
Sullivan won’t be turning on Obama, though. He wants that baby too badly. To be precise, he wants sex, and the person-or-people he wants sex with will continue to Believe in The One. Watch: they’ll find a way in a few days to twist their little brains into pretzels of rationalization.
Come to think of it, I think there’s a good chance that Sullivan’s current depression over The One is an act. Sullivan knows that people know he is in the tank. He goes through periodic hand-wringing and al-Gore-like sighing to try to rebuild a figleaf of credibility, at least among his equally-deluded followers. This Warren thing is an obvious tactical opportunity for that.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2008 @ 10:26 am - December 18, 2008
They told me that if I voted for McCain that gays would lose their seat at the political table. And they were right!
Comment by DoDoGuRu — December 18, 2008 @ 10:32 am - December 18, 2008
The gays couldn’t carry California for him, so they are “out”.
Religious folk voted for him, and there are more of them to please.
Politics. It happens.
Comment by Stormy70 — December 18, 2008 @ 11:05 am - December 18, 2008
Anyone who actually watched Saddleback would understand why BHO chose Rick Warren.
Rick Warren is a “spiritual leader who cares about society and the good of ALL. Sensible and caring.
I have never heard him speak a word of hate like the Rev. Wright, Jesse Jackson or any of the far RIGHT evangelists.
Remember this is still pre-inauguration. We shall see which Obama shows up the morning after.
Obama may have us all fooled.
Comment by Jeb — December 18, 2008 @ 11:12 am - December 18, 2008
First there was Bill Clinton´s ¨Don´t ask, don´t tell¨ solution to gays in the military, now Obama incurs the anger of the Gay community with his choice of ministers for his inaugural invocation. Democrats have been disappointing the left in the gay community for years but they continue to drink from the trough the Democrats give them. That plus the radical lefts embrace of radical islam is an enigma. They have the nerve to call us gay conservatives, jewish nazis.
Comment by Roberto — December 18, 2008 @ 11:14 am - December 18, 2008
Too right, ILC. Some Obamamoonies have started a ‘Take Back Barack’ blog too encourage Dear Leader to purge the moderates in his cabinet and return to progressive policies, but it’s really more of an emotional outlet than a serious endeavor.
Conservatives soured on Bush because he betrayed common sense conservative principles. It was an intellectual rebellion. But the attachment of the left to their Dear Leader is emotional. And like an abused girlfriend with low self-esteem, they’ll keep coming back to him no matter how hard he smacks them around.
Comment by V the K — December 18, 2008 @ 11:20 am - December 18, 2008
John Halitosis threatens to throw his shoes at Chairman O. With this kind of passion, the make-up sex is bound to be incredible.
Comment by V the K — December 18, 2008 @ 11:32 am - December 18, 2008
Aahhhhhh, that’s better. Thanks, DDGR! 🙂
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2008 @ 11:41 am - December 18, 2008
Ideally, Warren would turn down the invitation, indicating his understanding that Obama is merely trying to appeal to a demographic that didn’t favor him. But I suspect Warren is too big to fail and too small to stick to the purpose of his purpose-driven life.
Comment by Ignatius — December 18, 2008 @ 11:48 am - December 18, 2008
Right Wing News has a Round-Up of the Left’s Bitter Tirades. You are ever-so-tasty this morning, my little schadenfreude.
Comment by V the K — December 18, 2008 @ 11:53 am - December 18, 2008
“Remember this is still pre-inauguration. We shall see which Obama shows up the morning after.
Obama may have us all fooled.
Comment by Jeb — December 18, 2008 @ 11:12 am – December 18, 2008”
My sentiments exactly.
Comment by Swampfox — December 18, 2008 @ 12:15 pm - December 18, 2008
Hmm as much as I hate pop culture references, is it time for a new one?
Rather than saying the gay left got ‘punk’d’ can we say they were Rick Warrened?
Comment by The Livewire — December 18, 2008 @ 12:21 pm - December 18, 2008
Christian evangelicals are a large segment of our society, if not the majority. Therefore they deserve nothing whatsoever. Of all evangelical pastors, I’d say Rick Warren is a good choice, because he is well known and to be honest, is probably more moderate than most.
So the true colors of the extreme left are showing, they don’t want tolerance and acceptance – they want to take over and eliminate the rights and beliefs of others.
This is one more instance where I like what Obama is doing, I’m holding on to these moments, cuz once he actually becomes president, I think they will be few and far between.
Comment by Leah — December 18, 2008 @ 12:32 pm - December 18, 2008
The Gay Left attacks conservative Gays for supporting the GOP based on their economic and foreign policy/national security self-interests at the expense of gay marriage….which the Dhimmicrats don’t support either. Now the proverbial shoe’s on the other foot; the Gay Left sacrificed their own natural self-interests on behalf of gay marriage despite their own party’s candidate’s stated position based on hope; hope that he was lying.
They were right. “Bwahahahahah….!”
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 18, 2008 @ 1:40 pm - December 18, 2008
24 liberal groups pledge unquestioning support to Obama. And they accused Bush supporters of “blind loyalty.”
Comment by V the K — December 18, 2008 @ 1:53 pm - December 18, 2008
Modern libs do a lot of projecting. And, they want the ‘stimulus’ handouts.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2008 @ 1:59 pm - December 18, 2008
Leftist Huffposter just can’t go on without encouragement and “inspiration” from Dear Leader.
Comment by V the K — December 18, 2008 @ 2:01 pm - December 18, 2008
OMG.
Were conservatives like this, when Reagan was big? I know they loved and respected him. Some even had his photo. They would say they had good reasons to admire him. And the Obammunists claim to have good reasons, for their admiration. But did significant numbers of Reaganites have *that* kind of need for Reagan’s daily “inspiration”? Were they that under-medicated; their psyches *that* dependent on Him? I was an adult in the 80s, and a Reagan-hating Democrat to boot… and I don’t remember the adulation from Reagan’s admirers being that blind and disturbed.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2008 @ 2:40 pm - December 18, 2008
Responding to the question asked, who would be acceptable? – Gene Robinson, Bishop (Episcopal) of New Hampshire.
Comment by andrewdb — December 18, 2008 @ 2:42 pm - December 18, 2008
Yeah, how dare Obama pick Warren. He should have picked a Democrat to give the invocation. Someone like, say, Fred Phelps (D – KS).
Comment by Vic — December 18, 2008 @ 2:59 pm - December 18, 2008
There are plenty of pastors, priests, and ministers who have not made the types of remarks that Warren has made and would have been acceptable to the lgbtxyz-whatever “community.” Obama’s choice is clearly calculated to garner votes early next year because he doesn’t have that supermajority. Not surprising at all and politically expedient of him.
Different? Change? Never bought that scheme for a minute. Anyone who didn’t see this bus coming is a moron.
Comment by Jamie — December 18, 2008 @ 3:39 pm - December 18, 2008
Frankly, anyone who voted for Obama primarily because of a “gay rights” issue is selfish and pathetic. Gays will get everything they need and want from this country the good old fashioned way: IN TIME, and by earning it (and by letting all the old, conservative haters simply die off). Our country is faced with one zillion issues that are more important than my “gay rights” and I made my presidential choice based on those issues – NOT based on what the president thinks of who I sleep with.
Comment by Don Jones — December 18, 2008 @ 3:46 pm - December 18, 2008
#17:
More appropriate and current would be that they were Rick Rolled.
Comment by Attmay — December 18, 2008 @ 4:24 pm - December 18, 2008
I find it quite amusing that BHO selected ‘the man behind the curtain’ for now lots of folk will be paying a tad bit more attention to Brother Warren, as he continues to build his faith fortresses(4th largest church in america-wikipedia). And, with Warren as the BHO pick, Prop 8 hit the radar again on a national level.
Bringing together folk is what BHO is all about, and sometimes that is like inviting the relatives from the distant side of the family to the wedding, christining (sp), bar mitzvah, etc. that no one really wants to invite or even see. But after they all get together, well, sometimes more fireworks.
I have only seen Brother Warren in two video clips, like his charisma and admire him not only as a very effective spokesperson, but for his ability to keep his ‘cool’.
But all this aside, before true conversations and dialogues to develop h, folk must be around the table. This is OHB’s hope and tactic for change.
But then again The Godfather once said, ‘Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.’
Comment by rusty — December 18, 2008 @ 4:26 pm - December 18, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLI1oxNRpUY
Obama explaining, rather well, why he chose Warren.
A stupid CNN reporter calling Warren a homophobe. A man who has done more for gay people, especially those afflicted with AIDS than any of the so called ‘Gay Leadership’.
Give me a break, George Orwell is laughing his sorry dead rear end off.
Comment by Leah — December 18, 2008 @ 4:47 pm - December 18, 2008
The Left having gone mad with rage over Rick Warren, I came here looking for reason.
Doesn’t seem like I found it.
Punk’d? HA!
This is how the “bringing people together” shtick will work. Those on the right will get symbolic gestures. Those on the left will get actual victories.
It seems most on either side have yet to catch on to the game.
Comment by Erik — December 18, 2008 @ 6:19 pm - December 18, 2008
Yeah, Erik, like the huge victory the left had on prop 8!
argument fail.
Comment by American Elephant — December 18, 2008 @ 6:43 pm - December 18, 2008
lol @ Vic
Comment by American Elephant — December 18, 2008 @ 6:47 pm - December 18, 2008
Hey Einstein, I meant with regard to federal legislation.
Comment by Erik — December 18, 2008 @ 7:07 pm - December 18, 2008
oops, I block quote the wrong line. That comment was towards American Elephant.
Comment by Erik — December 18, 2008 @ 7:08 pm - December 18, 2008
“[W]e feel a deep level of disrespect when one of architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination.”
Who’s we? Why does the left(*) cast every disagreement as “anti-“? Does that make people who support same-sex marriage “anti-family”? Anti-straight?
* Not always the left. I just got a spam from Log Cabin whining about the same thing.
#5: helio – now that was funny.
Comment by SoCalRobert — December 18, 2008 @ 8:54 pm - December 18, 2008
So this would be like the new and improved Rickroll? 😉
Comment by John — December 18, 2008 @ 9:23 pm - December 18, 2008
I don’t understand. Obama has clearly demonstrated his hate and bigotry with his extremist opposition to equality and civil rights for gay Americans.
Anyone who voted for him thinking otherwise is delusional, self-hating and/or a fool.
Hope and Change indeed.
Comment by Bobo in Texas — December 18, 2008 @ 9:46 pm - December 18, 2008
I’m sorry Erik, you’re right, I misunderstood you. I sew what you mean, not sure I agree. They may pass dont ask dont tell, since most people seem to favor gays in the military, but i dont expect they will do anything for gay marriage other than appointing liberal activists to the bench.
Comment by American Elephant — December 18, 2008 @ 10:00 pm - December 18, 2008
(Speaking of being Thrown under the Bus, you all might enjoy my little song. Please modify, add, make better, it is Open Source;)
“Throooow ‘em Under the Busâ€
By Marinelurp
When the going gets tough,
When mud ‘n slander flies thick.
And the sh*t is hitting the fan,
Someone’s really rockin’ the boat,
Trying to hijack Hope and Change.
Wha’ cha gonna do? Wha’ cha gonna say?
You Beeeetter(slowly):
(Chorus)
Throw ‘em, under the Bus,
Toss ‘em, under the Bus,
Cover your Ass! Try to distance yourself!
Just grab ‘em by the neck,
and throw ‘em, throw ‘em
Under the Bus!
Liberals and youth, they all adored Him,
The ONE was all that they had dreamed of.
He told them “Change that you can believe inâ€,
Promised to spread the wealth around.
Then, after He won the election,
All the promises were changed, THEN, they heard:
(Chorus)
Throw ‘em all, under the Bus,
Toss ‘em, under the Bus,
Cover your Ass! Try to distance yourself!
Just grab ‘em by the neck,
and throw ‘em, throw ‘em
Under the Bus!
Obama threw gay activists under the bus today,
Pandering to Christians, at his inauguration.
Paster Rick, (where’s Wright?), will give the invocation.
So, instead of advancing gay-equality,
Gays are furious, it’s a depressing omen,
Time to sober up, and face the awful truth.
You’ve beeen:
Thrown Under the Bus,
Tossed Under the Bus,
Cover your tracks, Try to distance yourself!
Just grab ‘em ALL by the necks,
and throw ‘em, throw ‘em
Under the Bus!
(Open Source song)
Comment by marinelurp — December 18, 2008 @ 10:28 pm - December 18, 2008
#29 Leah:
How is that stupid Leah, considering how Warren compared same-sex marriage or incest and paedophilia during the beliefnet interview? Sounds pretty antigay to me. Regardless of his work in helping those with AIDS (which was actually initiated by his wife), his damned megachurch via its Celebrate Recovery ministry has an ex-gay group meeting on Friday evenings, causing more pain and torment for closet cases. Face it, the guy is just a Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt with a great PR team, and you bozos seem to have fell for it.
Comment by Rob — December 18, 2008 @ 11:12 pm - December 18, 2008
Fr. Guido Sarducci?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 18, 2008 @ 11:53 pm - December 18, 2008
Am I showing my age with that one? Oh yeah. All you guys are older than me.
N/m.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 19, 2008 @ 12:04 am - December 19, 2008
So, I ventured over to Miss Milky Glutes’ to laugh at the contortions and rationalizations (I was not disappointed), but while there, I found this fascinating little nugget:
and it seems to me that with that little statement, Sullivan is contradicting so much of what he claims to be about. We don’t even have federal marriage, yet Sully, who regularly claims to be the true conservative, is calling for federal civil unions. So much for being a federalist or a conservative.
And as far as I know, Sully himself coined the term “Christianist” as a pejorative, which he uses approximately every 5 seconds to perpetuate the lie that conservative Christians want to use the power of government to force their beliefs on everyone else — and yet it is he, not they, who is calling for federal social legislation, forcing his beliefs on everyone and on every state. I guess that makes him a homosexualist?
Truly, is there a bigger. more intellectually dishonest hypocrite anywhere on the web?
Comment by American Elephant — December 19, 2008 @ 3:54 am - December 19, 2008
Dan, Bruce? Filtered again.
Comment by American Elephant — December 19, 2008 @ 3:55 am - December 19, 2008
#40, I dunno TGC, guido sarducci was before my time.
Comment by American Elephant — December 19, 2008 @ 3:56 am - December 19, 2008
I hear him occasionally on Doctor Demento, does that count?
Comment by The Livewire — December 19, 2008 @ 6:45 am - December 19, 2008
Fr. Guido Sarducci was created in the early 70s. He wouldn’t be a good choice because Obama also needs to appease the Roman church. The stupid thing about him choosing Warren is that many Christians on the right don’t much like Warren, he’s too liberal.
It’s interesting to me that the most important thing to some of you is that “the left” got slapped in the face. Because of your false opinion that those of us who voted for Obama did so because 1) we worship him and 2) we think he’s the savior of the LGBT communities and that we are shattered by this “betrayal”. I suppose this delusion comforts you and provides some kind of sick satisfaction. But it’s disturbing that it is that which is more important to you not the fact that Warren is quite comfortable spewing the same old comparisons to pedophiles etc. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, many of you seem to like being dumped on like that. Maybe some day you’ll grow some cojones.
“A man who has done more for gay people, especially those afflicted with AIDS than any of the so called ‘Gay Leadership’.”
Funny, as long as we’re dying they “love” us and are willing to help. When we’re alive and insisting that they have no right to interfere in our lives, the “love” is gone and we’re back to being depraved sinners a threat to society. It’s ok to help those with AIDS because they’re proof that our lives will only lead to destruction. Aside from that Leah, exactly what has Warren EVER done for us.
Comment by a different Dave — December 19, 2008 @ 9:21 am - December 19, 2008
What is a Messiah to do? Run a tape of Billy Graham?
Here is a possibility: They could have a competition among prison non-denominal soul assistants for the most lilting non specific calling of hopenchange from who knows where. Voila! A new face saying very little in a grand way at a lovefest.
It could be an homage to the little man.
To answer the question posed above: no.
Comment by heliotrope — December 19, 2008 @ 11:11 am - December 19, 2008
There are many pastors that Nobama could have chosen. Once again, NObama does what he does best..pander and give lip service instead of conduct and deeds toward healing the nation’s wounds and disagreements. I find it impossible to believe that Nobama could not find one pastor or person of faith to deliver the Inaugural Invocation…instead let’s see he selects good old Teddy Bear Rick Warren who loves we Gays so much that he refers to us as pedophiles, practicing incest lovers, man on animal sex and polygamists.
Yet our community embraces good old NObama who threw us under the bus repeatedly (shades of Donny McClurkin any one?) followed by I am against same sex marriage but I am also against Proposition 8) Good old fashioned double speak.
Coming attractions more throw Gays under the Bus (the sequel to I throw my dearly departed Grandmother under the bus) Oh wait he continues to throw us under the bus.
Well at least 30 percent of us were smart enough to vote McCain/Palin (and let’s face it most of us did that because we would rather have voted for Palin/McCain.
My only hope is that Palin is strategically smart in when she runs for President (I would hate for her to run in 2012 and lose)
I can definitely see a Palin/Jindal 2016 ticket.
Comment by Rocket — December 19, 2008 @ 11:37 am - December 19, 2008
“Is there ANY American religious leader that would be acceptable to the Radical Gay Left to do an invocation?”
Reverend Wright. He probably hates gays too (as well as white people, ‘Amerikkka’ as a whole, and a bunch of other stuff); but he’s got minority victimhood status and has spoken against Bush… and that’s all that counts.
Remember- to most minority groups the important word- the one they will sacrifice the rest for- isn’t “Minority”, it’s “Leftist”. Go ask Tammy Bruce if you don’t believe me.
Comment by DaveP. — December 19, 2008 @ 11:40 am - December 19, 2008
But it’s disturbing that it is that which is more important to you not the fact that Warren is quite comfortable spewing the same old comparisons to pedophiles etc.
Isn’t it charmingly clueless how the gay liberals like Dave who support, endorse, and refuse to condemn this sort of behavior can’t figure out why people keep comparing them to pedophiles?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2008 @ 1:32 pm - December 19, 2008
Funny, as long as we’re dying they “love†us and are willing to help.
And notice how gay liberals like Dave bash them for helping gays.
Is it obvious to everyone by now that gay liberals like Dave bash based solely on religious and political affiliation, and not on what the person does?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2008 @ 1:36 pm - December 19, 2008
Isn’t it charmingly clueless how the gay liberals like Dave who support, endorse, and refuse to condemn this sort of behavior can’t figure out why people keep comparing them to pedophiles?
Yeah, I think it’s because peoplelike me and NDT — though we’ve had our differences — have a capacity that leftists lack, and that’s the ability to look at ourselves and our beliefs and our behavior and try to keep them consistent and centered on core principles. Leftist commenters seem to lack both this capacity for self-appraisal, and any consistent set of core beliefs to adhere to (beyond, “If it feels good, do it!”)
Comment by V the K — December 19, 2008 @ 1:43 pm - December 19, 2008
have a capacity that leftists lack, and that’s the ability to look at ourselves and our beliefs and our behavior and try to keep them consistent and centered on core principles.
V the K, I have to say this is a matter of perception. Because I see the same issue with the rightists. No, not all. But I think that those on the left and on the right (again, not all) are selective when they self-appraise.
Comment by Pat — December 19, 2008 @ 2:19 pm - December 19, 2008
Pat,
Did you forget to address V the K’s core point? He said he and NDT try to keep consistent and centered on core principles. They try to behave accordingly. He said leftists lack this characteristic. (I would have said that leftists lack consistent and centered core principles.)
You respond
You follow this charge with
OK. What is your conclusion from these two premises?
Comment by heliotrope — December 19, 2008 @ 3:33 pm - December 19, 2008
That those on the left are very good finding fault with those on the right, while downplaying the bad stuff on the left. Now, repeat the last sentence switching “right” and “left.”
In other words, I don’t think the right is any better than the left in consistency and centered core principles. They simply think they are better. Just as the left think they are better than the right on this regard.
Comment by Pat — December 19, 2008 @ 4:09 pm - December 19, 2008
“the ability to look at ourselves and our beliefs and our behavior and try to keep them consistent and centered on core principles. ”
the core principles of NDT are to hate all things gay, to hate liberals to the point of lying about them every single time he posts, and to repeat lies even though they have been disproved over and over. If THAT is a principle that he and/or you V can look at and accept then you are more disgusting than I first thought. The fact that not ONE of you “conservatives” on here call NDT for his childish, hostile and ignorant words shows how totally depraved you are yet you sit in judgement of every one else. Since it’s ok to judge all Obama supporters by a few then I guess that all gay conservatives have the mental capability of an ant and the manners of a rabid racoon. I make the same mistake over and over, thinking I’ve seen the depths of nonsense some can go on here. NDT you call me anti-religious because I speak the truth about many conservative Christians, given the way you treat people on here you had best hope that what they teach is wrong or you are going to burn for a very very long time. Not only are you an admitted homosexual but you haven’t the capacity to speak the truth about “liberals” or to accept what they say about themselves. Bearing false witness – NDT the french fry.
Comment by a different Dave — December 19, 2008 @ 4:59 pm - December 19, 2008
And the amusement continues apace.
The fact that not ONE of you “conservatives†on here call NDT for his childish, hostile and ignorant words shows how totally depraved you are yet you sit in judgement of every one else.
Followed by:
Since it’s ok to judge all Obama supporters by a few then I guess that all gay conservatives have the mental capability of an ant and the manners of a rabid racoon.
One would think that, if gay liberals had an ounce of the intelligence and sense that they claim to possess by virtue of their voting patterns, they would recognize that following a sentence in which one complains about being insulted with a sentence full of insults is at best highly contradictory, and at most, laughably hypocritical.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2008 @ 6:53 pm - December 19, 2008
NDT you call me anti-religious because I speak the truth about many conservative Christians, given the way you treat people on here you had best hope that what they teach is wrong or you are going to burn for a very very long time.
Actually, no; you only “speak the truth” about white, non-Catholic, non-Muslim, non-Jewish churchgoers, despite the fact that black religious groups, Catholics, Muslims, and several Jewish groups do the very same things that you are shrieking are “homophobic”. What that demonstrates, adDave, is that your criticisms are not based on what people actually do, but whether or not they are a consistent Democrat voting bloc. That makes it more than obvious that you are an antireligious bigot, and even better, an inconsistent one.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2008 @ 7:01 pm - December 19, 2008
Filter, GPW.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2008 @ 7:01 pm - December 19, 2008
Thanks, Pat.
Could you help me here ……. What are the core principles of the left?
I can’t tell when the left is being consistent when it isn’t clear what their core principles are.
Comment by heliotrope — December 19, 2008 @ 7:17 pm - December 19, 2008
Wow, a different Dave has reached apogee. Shall we partially deconstruct his flamefest in #58?
For the record, I am a conservative and straight. (St8.) I have not seen any reason to quibble with NDT or V the K. They seem to me to have an excellent grasp on conservative values. Your thunder and lightening strike has dragged me into your wrath because I am a conservative. You have acted like a freshman trying to light methane from his nether region and ended up badly charing his rear portal.
You, a different Dave, proclaim
I seriously doubt that you can name any religion of which you approve. I wonder if you approve of some conservatives and no conservative Christians, or, if you are aligned against conservatives, Christian or not? And, do tell me about liberal Christians of whom you approve. What is it in their dogma that you accept? Am I correct in assuming that you are essentially without concern about religion, except when some religious tenet makes you squirm?
A little less wrath and a bit more reason would be welcome.
Comment by heliotrope — December 19, 2008 @ 8:25 pm - December 19, 2008
I’d try another English to adDave post, but i’m still recovering from the flu and don’t want to shut the oxygen to my brain for the time it would take.
Comment by The Livewire — December 19, 2008 @ 8:39 pm - December 19, 2008
Anti-religious bigot = anyone who believes the Bible is WRONG about homosexuality or that those who use their religious beliefs to deny gays the rights they are entitled is wrong.
Comment by Attmay — December 20, 2008 @ 2:35 am - December 20, 2008
For the umpteenth time, Attmay, you are not “entitled” to marry whatever turns you on sexually or what you “love”. You have the same right that everyone else has to marry one human person of the opposite sex who is of age and not closely related to you; the fact that you don’t want to limit yourself by gender is no more an entitlement to have marriage redefined to fit your needs than it is for those who don’t want to be limited by age, number of people, blood relationship, or species.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2008 @ 3:18 am - December 20, 2008
Could you help me here ……. What are the core principles of the left?
I can’t tell when the left is being consistent when it isn’t clear what their core principles are.
I’m afraid I can’t speak to that so much, Heliotrope, but I’ll try. I’m more of a left-leaning moderate, so it’s easier for me to see both of the loony stuff on the right and the left. The point is that everyone has their own core principles. Even V the K made the point that he and NDT have their disagreements. So it’s hard to lump everyone on the left (or the right) together, yet that’s what seems to happen. That’s how we can lump all Obama supporters together by saying how wrong they are for voting for Obama because of his judgment of having Warren do the invocation, and at the same time how wrong Obama supporters for opposing Warren in the first place.
About consistency? Yes, I agree there are times that the left is not consistent. In other words, if Party (individual, community, or institution, say) A and Group B does the same thing, someone from the left will say how awful Group A is, but more tepid response from Group B. I’ve seen the same from the right.
I also think that both groups try and pigeonhole the other side into one extreme or the other, when there are many points in between.
I’m afraid that it’s hard on a forum like this to articulate any further, so I don’t know if my answer makes sense or is satisfactory to you.
Comment by Pat — December 20, 2008 @ 8:07 am - December 20, 2008
BHO uses religion to advance his political career. For twenty two years he attended Trinity UCC because it was the launching pad for his climb up the ladder. When it no longer served his purpose, he threw Rev. Wright under the bus and resigned his membership. He could have invited either Rev. Jesse Jackson or Rev. Al Sharpton, but he doesn´t need them. Their followers are already in his camp. He didn´t choose, Rick Warren just for the inaugural invocation, he´s already working on his reelection campaign for 2012. His plan is to take the evangelical vote away from the Republican Party.
Comment by Roberto — December 20, 2008 @ 9:55 am - December 20, 2008
Thanks, Pat.
Core principles are things like personal responsibility, the Golden Rule, free enterprise, open markets, freedom of choice, self determination, the rule of law, limited government, introspection, service, honesty, integrity and a reverence for God.
I am afraid that many leftists I encounter look to the government as an arbiter of responsibility. A person who “fails” is a victim of something outside himself and therefore “entitled” to some government assistance or bail out.
For leftists, the Golden Rule means to “aggressively promote the general welfare.”
They find free enterprise to be guilty of abusing employees and an engine for greed of the few.
For leftists, open markets are an “unlevel playing field” rather than a challenge to compete.
Freedom of choice, for the leftists is pretty much limited to abortion. It is not about education, medical care, who you hire, talk radio, etc.
Leftists have morphed self determination into political correctness and group think. (Caroline Kennedy is fit for the Senate without any evidence of self determination, while Sarah Palin is a lowbrow, pushy, hick who has ridden a wave of hickdom.)
The rule of law is a guide for leftists, but something to be interpreted by caring liberal judges.
Limited government is the antithesis of being leftist, since government intervention into all things is their religion. They dream up things like “hate crimes” and “hate speech” and narrow bands of “civil rights” and regulation of fat intake and covering skateboarders with bubble wrap and deficit spending to pump corn juice into cars and outlawing light bulbs and replacing them with mercury lamps that have a million hazardous waste requirements if you break one. All this with the force of government which can take your wealth or your freedom if you do not comply.
Leftists band together and point haggard fingers and decry their foes. They do not give their ideas or the ideas of others the second thought of introspection. Once a leftist concept becomes established, they become hide bound conservatives about keeping it in force without regard to its efficacy or damage it may cause the general society. Social Security is the ultimate Ponzi scheme, but no leftist will address it and any conservative who does will be pilloried, if not burned at the stake. Leftists dare not engage in introspection, because to do so may disrupt the whole notion of “victimhood” upon which leftists have laid their very foundation.
Service has become a portal to government intervention and funding for the leftist. Service means gaining access to funds for some project. Leftist service rarely involves self determination, charity, a helping hand, introspection and responsibility.
Honesty, particularly in gaining power, is a variable for the leftist. The ends justify the means, so manipulating the “facts” and omitting the truth and parsing the words is politically smart. When conservatives try this, they look like Larry Craig. When leftists do it, they are so practiced that they chirp away like Barney Frank or Al Sharpton.
Integrity for the leftist is loyalty to whatever he says he is loyal to at the moment. You can always deny and redefine. Obama is a master of this definition of integrity.
A reverence for God among leftists requires a whole truck load of asterisks, because they only revere politically convenient aspects of religion. Biden and Pelosi decided to mess with the integrity of the Catholic Church on the subject of when human life begins and they found out that the Catholic Church is not amused.
Other conservatives on this site may disagree with what I have written. I would be introspective about that and consider their thoughts carefully. Leftists may point out something I have written as contradictory or poorly constructed. I welcome the dialogue.
I am not denying that leftists have all the same core beliefs I have. I am saying they act on them in an entirely different manner and in ways I believe are hypocritical and politically expedient.
Conservatives are not without fault and leftists are not without good ideas and intentions. But the diatribes from the left have become so searing and abusive that one wonders if civility and decency can survive.
This whole Rick Warren thing is a great example. Obama has made a political choice to “use” Rick Warren in his coronation ceremony. Many have attacked that choice for its extra-political overtones. Rick Warren is not some firebrand minister. He will come and do a thoughtful “chicken soup” invocation and disappear back to his flock. It will not set the liberal agenda back one notch. But the leftists are acting like Rick Warren is going to take the microphone and “damn” every sinner from every list that has ever been compiled and then lead the drooling masses of the pitchfork and torch yielding Christian right to attack and destroy civilization as we know it.
For me, a main leftist core principle is to run around screaming about some part of the sky falling and demanding that government fix it immediately.
Comment by heliotrope — December 20, 2008 @ 10:35 am - December 20, 2008
‘white, non-Catholic, non-Muslim, non-Jewish churchgoers, despite the fact that black religious groups, Catholics, Muslims, and several Jewish groups do the very same things that you are shrieking are “homophobic‒
Your incorrect assumptions are based on your own artificial divisions – I have many times clearly stated I was speaking of fanatic practitioners of any religion – the particular creed, doctrine or deity is not the issue, what the person does with such beliefs is.
I’ve NEVER used the word homophobic on here except in a sentence telling you I’ve never used it.
I wonder is it the number of lies you use that tips you into everlasting fire or is it the inability to do anything but lie? Either way, you’re fried son.
Can you please show me where Attmay ever mentioned marriage in #65?
Comment by a different Dave — December 20, 2008 @ 11:53 am - December 20, 2008
Filterrrrr, GPW.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2008 @ 12:45 pm - December 20, 2008
He didn´t choose, Rick Warren just for the inaugural invocation, he´s already working on his reelection campaign for 2012.
Roberto, I thought the same thing.
His plan is to take the evangelical vote away from the Republican Party.
Well, some of it, at least.
Comment by Pat — December 20, 2008 @ 1:32 pm - December 20, 2008
the fact that you don’t want to limit yourself by gender is no more an entitlement to have marriage redefined to fit your needs than it is for those who don’t want to be limited by age, number of people, blood relationship, or species.
I’m curious. Does anyone else subscribe to this thought?
While there are good reasons that relationships between adults and children; between adults and nonhuman animals, plants, or objects; between close relatives; and between multiple partners, are not a good idea, let alone marriage, the same is simply not true regarding homosexual relationships. At least I think we’re all on the same page with that one. No?
Comment by Pat — December 20, 2008 @ 1:38 pm - December 20, 2008
#72: I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the answer that NDT is going to pull out of his Big Book of Irrational Stock Answers to Rational Questions is a resounding “no.” Because anything goes as long as it’s heterosexual to NDT. Everything else is morally equivalent to those big fat bugaboos of Polygamy, Incest, Bestiality and Pedophilia.
Comment by Attmay — December 20, 2008 @ 3:18 pm - December 20, 2008
While there are good reasons that relationships between adults and children; between adults and nonhuman animals, plants, or objects; between close relatives; and between multiple partners, are not a good idea,
Actually, Pat, the same constitutional experts that you have in place saying that gay marriage should be legalized also are saying that plural marriage should be legalized.
You have no grounds to deny plural marriage. You and your fellow gay liberals have abolished the right of government to regulate marriage, and made of marriage a “fundamental civil right” that cannot be denied to anyone and must be awarded on the basis of “love”. You may not invoke traditional or religious values, nor may you exercise any moral judgment on the value of plural marriage whatsoever, because to do so makes you a hatemonger and a bigot who is trying to impose their moral code on others.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2008 @ 4:22 am - December 21, 2008
Heliotrope, I responded to your post, but it was filtered. Should appear at or about 77.
Comment by Pat — December 21, 2008 @ 7:56 am - December 21, 2008
Actually, Pat, the same constitutional experts that you have in place saying that gay marriage should be legalized also are saying that plural marriage should be legalized.
NDT, I have no idea who are the constitutional experts that I have in place. I’ve stated and made the case before, and in this thread, that plural marriage should not be legalized.
You have no grounds to deny plural marriage.
The hell I don’t.
You and your fellow gay liberals
NDT, my arguments are different from what you perceive as gay liberals, because for instance, I OPPOSE polygamy, whereas you perceive gay liberals to support polygamy.
So if you see a flaw in my argument, then stick to MY argument. Not the argument of “fellow gay liberals.”
Further, as I’ve also stated, some conservatives on this site also support same sex marriage and oppose polygamy. So if you want to lump me with others, maybe you should say “you are your fellow gay conservatives…”
abolished the right of government to regulate marriage, and made of marriage a “fundamental civil right†that cannot be denied to anyone and must be awarded on the basis of “loveâ€.
I have no idea what on Earth you are talking about. I’ve made my opinion on who I believed should have the privilege of marriage. We disagree on two counts. 1) You oppose same sex marriage. 2) I opposed marriage in which one or both are children in ALL cases, while you support marriage in some cases (if I’m wrong about this, I apologize, and I’ll stand corrected). What I also understand is that same sex marriage has to go through governmental process. The legislature or the people is preferable. But there is also a judicial process as well, whether or not we feel that they interpret the respective constitutions correctly.
You may not invoke traditional or religious values, nor may you exercise any moral judgment on the value of plural marriage whatsoever, because to do so makes you a hatemonger and a bigot who is trying to impose their moral code on others.
I’m afraid I’ve used traditional and religious values in making my moral judgment on both the issues of same sex marriage and polygamy. And despite the Bible sanctioning polygamy and opposing homosexuality, I came to the conclusions that I have.
My point is that you have lumped same sex marriage with polygamy, marriage between close family members, etc. I believe you have done so unfairly, because I don’t believe that a homosexual relationship in and of itself is bad, but I do think that incest, multiple partners at the same time, bestiality, etc., are bad. So why on Earth would I want these relationships to be sanctioned with marriage?
have abolished the right of government to regulate marriage, and made of marriage a “fundamental civil right†that cannot be denied to anyone and must be awarded on the basis of “loveâ€.
Comment by Pat — December 21, 2008 @ 8:16 am - December 21, 2008
Oops, I forgot to delete the last paragraph.
Comment by Pat — December 21, 2008 @ 8:21 am - December 21, 2008
Pat, I don;t think you’re getting it. You’re saying “I support gay marriage, but I oppose polygamy,” and failing to see the contradiction there.
What grounds do you have to deny people the right to polygamous marriage? Because it personally offends you? People are personally offended by gay marriage, too.
Do you think plural marriage will weaken the traditional model of a committed union of two people? See previous argument.
You just can’t go around saying “gender doesn’t matter, but numbers do,” because there’s no argument against polygamy that can not be made against gay marriage… ditto adult incestuous relationships.
When you say, “I don’t believe that a homosexual relationship in and of itself is bad, but I do think that incest, multiple partners at the same time, bestiality, etc., are bad,” you seem to be suggesting that simply defining something as “bad” is enough. That would seem to imply that social institutions can be defined by societal consensus. However, if you really believed that, you would not be pushing for gay marriage, which goes against a broad societal consensus.
Comment by V the K — December 21, 2008 @ 12:25 pm - December 21, 2008
Pat, I don;t think you’re getting it. You’re saying “I support gay marriage, but I oppose polygamy,†and failing to see the contradiction there.
V the K, I think I do get it, and I think I understand your position. I just don’t agree with it, and I probably am not doing a good job in articulating it. ILC, IMO, has done a much better job articulating his rationale, and I pretty much agree with what he has said.
What grounds do you have to deny people the right to polygamous marriage? Because it personally offends you? People are personally offended by gay marriage, too.
V the K, what grounds do you have to deny same sex marriage? The thing is, traditional marriage has changed quite a bit in the past 2000+ years. I’m not just talking about divorce being easier, which can be debated as to whether that’s a good thing or not. In Western culture, at least, we’ve eliminated polygamy as part of traditional marriage. We don’t view marriage as simply a property deal, or the wife considered as the husband’s property. We don’t tolerate men slapping around their wives anymore as something that’s okay. We don’t restrict marriage within races anymore either.
So now the question is should the tradition of marriage be changed once again. Since I believe that monogamous gay relationships should be valued, and are beneficial to society, it would be beneficial for the couple and for society to extend marriage in this situation. You are correct that others do find homosexuality offensive, and that such relationships shouldn’t be recognized as a marriage. So there’s an obvious difference of opinion. Time will tell which opinion will ultimately prevail. If it’s not mine, then same sex marriage won’t happen. So be it.
Since I don’t believe that multiple partnerships are beneficial to society, they should not be recognized as marriage. If people believe otherwise, let them make the case why such relationships should be valued and would benefit society.
That would seem to imply that social institutions can be defined by societal consensus. However, if you really believed that, you would not be pushing for gay marriage, which goes against a broad societal consensus.
Maybe this is the part I’m not getting. It seems to me that social institutions are defined by social consensus. But like most things, it’s not unanimous. So right now, the consensus is no same sex marriage. That doesn’t mean that that consensus is right. It used to be the consensus that slavery was okay.* Then times change and better ideas prevail.
So what should I do? Say that since the consensus is against same sex marriage, say, “okay, I won’t bother having my own opinion and rationale.” Instead I do believe my rationale is correct. And I believe that the rationale that many use against same sex marriage is incorrect. Many more people are coming to believe that as well. Time will tell if that will become the consensus or not.
Comment by Pat — December 21, 2008 @ 1:52 pm - December 21, 2008
I forgot to address the following:
*The statement above should not be construed to equating banning of same sex marriage with slavery. My point was about institutions and how they change in time.
Comment by Pat — December 21, 2008 @ 1:55 pm - December 21, 2008
Pat, there is no contradiction in my argument. I believe monogamous, committed, two-person, heterosexual marriage provides unique advantaged to society that no other arrangements offer, and therefore I have no problem with according it a unique social status.
But, if you take the position that other arrangements need to be recognized for some other reason, then to be intellectually consistent, you have to allow relationships that can be justified by those other reasons. You can’t just decide some arrangements should be privileged and others shouldn’t be strictly on the basis that you find them icky.
Comment by V the K — December 21, 2008 @ 2:17 pm - December 21, 2008
I believe monogamous, committed, two-person, heterosexual marriage provides unique advantaged to society that no other arrangements offer, and therefore I have no problem with according it a unique social status.
V the K, take away “heterosexual” above, and that is my position.
But, if you take the position that other arrangements need to be recognized for some other reason, then to be intellectually consistent, you have to allow relationships that can be justified by those other reasons.
That would be intellectually consistent. But the reasons I have for supporting same sex marriage do not apply to polygamy. So I’m not sure where I’m being inconsistent.
You can’t just decide some arrangements should be privileged and others shouldn’t be strictly on the basis that you find them icky.
That seems to be the main justification against same sex marriage from what I see. So I agree with you. And I don’t believe that was the basis of why I believe same sex marriage should be allowed and polygamy shouldn’t. Again, if it’s the way I’m articulating my argument, I apologize. And again, I’ll defer to ILC, who has articulated IMO a consistent rationale (and one I agree with) of why same sex marriage should be allowed and polygamy shouldn’t.
Comment by Pat — December 21, 2008 @ 3:20 pm - December 21, 2008
I have to wonder if you are deliberately being obtuse. My main objection against gay marriage has nothing to do with it being icky, it’s because it does not benefit society the way committed heterosexual marriage does. The reason it doesn’t is because it does not model the ideal structure for the continuation and transmission of stable social values from one generation to the next.
As a single parent, I’ve come to realize that the two parent, heterosexual model is invaluable because parents model relationships for children to follow. The continuation of these structures strengthens and maintains society. Furthermore, heterosexual relationships are what 96% of children will aspire to.
Gay marriage does not offer that. The sexes are different. Notwithstanding promiscuity and depravity, same-sex couples do not model to children the balance of the sexes, the give-and-take, the mutual support that models stable heterosexual marriage.
So, in my view, traditional heterosexual marriage is the one arrangement to be valued above all others, but that still leaves room for domestic partnerships and other alternative arrangement.
Comment by V the K — December 21, 2008 @ 4:03 pm - December 21, 2008
V the K, I don’t have to deliberately be obtuse to be obtuse. It wasn’t clear to me that you had in mind regarding the raising of children. I’m sure you’ve mentioned it before, but I forgot. Also, I didn’t mean to imply that your objection to same sex marriage was the ick factor. I was implying that most people who object to it is because of the ick factor, even if they give other reasons for the objection. I may be wrong about that, but that what it seems to me.
The point that I also made is that while marriage is certainly important and provides a good stable environment for children, we have extended the definition of marriage to include couples who are infertile and/or choose to not have children.
Now I understand if you rather keep things neat and simple, and would not want to change any requirement about insisting married couples procreate, or testing if both are fertile, I understand that. But my question is how do you feel about opposite sex couples that cannot or will not have children? Do you believe they shouldn’t marry? Do you believe that we should not encourage such couples to marry?
Furthermore, heterosexual relationships are what 96% of children will aspire to.
True. And maybe this doesn’t seem important, but I’m also concerned about the other 4%. We should have a model for them. I know, not the depravity and promiscuity. And I realize that one doesn’t need marriage to be monogamous. But models help, as you suggest with heterosexual relationships.
So, in my view, traditional heterosexual marriage is the one arrangement to be valued above all others, but that still leaves room for domestic partnerships and other alternative arrangement.
Fair enough. I understand your position.
Comment by Pat — December 21, 2008 @ 4:56 pm - December 21, 2008
How do you feel about opposite sex couples that cannot or will not have children?
Infertile and childless couples are collateral to the argument. They can be accommodated without radically changing the meaning and nature of the institution. But I think couples with children should be entitled to a higher level of privilege than childless couples.
Comment by V the K — December 21, 2008 @ 5:46 pm - December 21, 2008
Infertile and childless couples are collateral to the argument. They can be accommodated without radically changing the meaning and nature of the institution. But I think couples with children should be entitled to a higher level of privilege than childless couples.
V the K, maybe we agree more than disagree. I would just add that adding same sex couples would not radically change the meaning and nature of the institution, in my view. I agree that couples with children should be entitled to a higher level of privilege. But I would say that applies to same sex couples as well.
Comment by Pat — December 21, 2008 @ 5:59 pm - December 21, 2008
“Notwithstanding promiscuity and depravity”
Which is a characteristic of all, or most same sex couples?
“same-sex couples do not model to children the balance of the sexes”
certainly a point that can’t be argued against 🙂
” the give-and-take, the mutual support that models stable heterosexual marriage.”
How are “give-and-take” or “mutual support” gender specific? They are the mark of any stable couple, hetero, homo or asexual. The two-parent heterosexual model of a family likely is the ideal, I won’t argue one way or the other but I don’t think it’s correct to say that a same-sex couple can’t model the values that children need to grow up with and take to their future relationships.
I’m a bad liberal though because I think that civil-unions or domestic partnerships when configured correctly are just fine. My displeasure with Warren being included in the festivities has nothing to do with his views on marriage, it’s his opinions of us as human beings which to me disqualify him
Comment by a different Dave — December 21, 2008 @ 7:46 pm - December 21, 2008
When it comes to marriage, I believe it is smarter to offer civil unions to all couples, Gay or Str8. With that, there should be the same federal statutory rights offered. Each state offers different state statutory rights but they should be offered to all Gay or str8 couples. That is what in actuality has been offered for those thousands of years (indeed for most of those thousands of years, the “state” was not involved in marriage as an institution.)
If a couple wants the term “marriage” to apply to their union, then if they wish they can have it blessed by whatever religion they associate themselves with.
It would certainly make all the arguments and fighting go away.
I have never understand why civil unions are not offered to str8 couples…why discriminiate against them? (You can say either civil unions or domestic partnerships) whatever term floats your boat.
To me, it is the statutory rights that are at issue and it would take the fight out of the fight over marriage if Gay AND str8 couples were offered the same rights under what would be civil unions/domestic partnerships.
If there was a need for “marriage” based upon one’s religion, then one could apply to get that “marriage” certificate. At least with civil unions/domestic partnerships (whatever term one wants to use) with the same statutory rights for everyone, it solves the issue.
If a church didn’t want to “marry” a Gay couple, it wouldn’t matter since the Gay couple would have the same statutory rights as a str8 civil union couple.
It is so inane that our community doesn’t present that common sense solution and take the fight out of the issue by presenting common sense statutory solutions.
Now as to the issue at hand, shock of shocks Nobama panders to evangelicals, no less one who agrees with him…I mean do the Lefitst Nobama Marxists (I know, I am being redundant) really think Nobama is with them on any Gay issues…..self delusion..ain’t it grand?!! Gimme a break…..there will be a lot more throwing us under the bus and repeatedly running us over….if we didn’t learn our lesson with the Clintons, then we won’t learn it with this crowd either.
Yet Nobama will get lots and lots of money and support from the GLBT community….let’s hope that the American electorate has the Audacity to throw the bums out in 2012 (and start in 2010 with throwing Nancy and Harry to the curb along with their leftist pals)
Comment by Rocket — December 21, 2008 @ 8:04 pm - December 21, 2008