So why did Obama get this anti-gay bigot...

pym

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Posts
1,365
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
whuu????

this has NOTHING to do with what that amendment intended. NOTHING. religion in government is fine, acceptable, and healthy to many.

Well that's how you see it, isn't it. In that case so must we all. This is way too feeble an acusation to waste any more of my time on. It's all your's Facey.
 

D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Posts
1,511
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
123
My 2 cents: Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback Church & author of "The Purpose Driven Life", is a fairly moderate christian. Yes, he fought against prop 8. Yeah, he believes in the "one man, one woman" traditional definition of marriage.

But i'm appealing to people here as a mostly gay man. Rick Warren is not out to get the gay community. Rick Warren is no Tony Perkins (of the Family Research Council) or Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. Rick Warren thinks gay sex is sinful, yes, but a lot of christians do. I would never refer to him as a "gay bigot" like you would James Dobson.

I trust Obama on gay issues. And his wife Michelle is hugely behind the community. Obama is trying to "unite" the left & right in a moderate way at inauguration. If Barack wants a religious dude to speak, Rick Warren is an acceptable choice. He's the laidback Dr. Phil of evangelicals. Fine with me.

Social change, unfortunately, takes times. It's not gonna happen overnight.
 

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
How do you know this? I mean, really?

Or were you just wanting to stir the pot, and this was a quick sentence you whipped up to fit the bill?

It does present a nice little game we could all play. [Actually, some folks have been playing it for years already] It's kind of like Straw Man, but with the added wrinkle that one injects oneself into the bullshit.

This is fun...

not quite

one merely has to review the posts at this and some other boards, and the discourse available through the mass media to recognize that homosexuals are attempting to impute to their category the right to the same level of moral outrage enjoyed by the various racial, religious, and ethic groups, so-defined, that have been the subject of negative discrimination

simply review the posts on, say gay marriage, the next liberal cause célèbre, to get a feel, of how they are trying to equate the treatment received by them as as something akin to being the subject of apartheid, or wholesale relegation to the ovens of Auschwitz

to select someone as this particular fellow, then would be akin to select someone along the lines of David Duke, or Goering, as far as their special interest group goes
 

D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Posts
1,511
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
123
I'm sorry -- my above post -- should have read Rick Warren fought FOR prop 8. My bad!

Note: The CA constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in 2000 was called Prop 22. It passed by a 61% majority.

The new CA constitutional amendment to limit marriage between one man & one woman passed by a slim 52% majority.

The folks fighting to keep gays from marrying are ultimately losing the battle, The poll numbers bear this out.

Give it 2 to 4 more years. The day is coming.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,328
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
not quite

one merely has to review the posts at this and some other boards, and the discourse available through the mass media to recognize that homosexuals are attempting to impute to their category the right to the same level of moral outrage enjoyed by the various racial, religious, and ethic groups, so-defined, that have been the subject of negative discrimination

simply review the posts on, say gay marriage, the next liberal cause célèbre, to get a feel, of how they are trying to equate the treatment received by them as as something akin to being the subject of apartheid, or wholesale relegation to the ovens of Auschwitz

to select someone as this particular fellow, then would be akin to select someone along the lines of David Duke, or Goering, as far as their special interest group goes

Entire post as a non-sequitur?

BTW, do you cut and paste your stuff from various sources, or is that just how you talk/write/speak? It's an interesting "rhythm".
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
not quite

one merely has to review the posts at this and some other boards, and the discourse available through the mass media to recognize that homosexuals are attempting to impute to their category the right to the same level of moral outrage enjoyed by the various racial, religious, and ethic groups, so-defined, that have been the subject of negative discrimination

simply review the posts on, say gay marriage, the next liberal cause célèbre, to get a feel, of how they are trying to equate the treatment received by them as as something akin to being the subject of apartheid, or wholesale relegation to the ovens of Auschwitz

to select someone as this particular fellow, then would be akin to select someone along the lines of David Duke, or Goering, as far as their special interest group goes

Nick, the Obama diehards would embrace Joseph Stalin if the Chosen One had slated him in the inaugural agenda. Its teflon Barry..he can do no wrong. Sooner or later, the libs will grow tired of these acts of irony....but now they are in the Honeymoon period and Teflon Barry is too amazing.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
And if he'd asked a pro-gay pastor, there'd be five forum threads howling to the Heavens about how it just confirms that he's the most liberal president ever......yada yada yada.

actually, why didn't he just ask a simple pastor, from the National Church, who does not make his political views an issue?

Frankly, i do not think an anti-gay bigot should be giving an address, no matter whose inauguration it is.

I have not started a single controversial or critical thread in this forum about Obama's political choices, not one.

i just find it very ironic, that he could not find a simple, non-controversial bishop (or priest or pastor or reverend or whatever, since i do not believe in god and do not care at all...frankly i find it offensive that there is a religious presence of any kind at every inauguration)

I do not care who he asked, but if this isn't a direct slap in the face to those gay groups that supported him, why are they reacting so angrily?

it is not my words, it is theirs. Nor is it partisan...

the liberal and gay groups are going berserk...not the far right looneys...so take it up with them.


Fact: no matter what he does, there will be "gotcha" artists waiting with bated breath.

Threads like this are becoming so predictable.


how is asking a legitimate question about why someone who is an alleged supporter of the GLBT community, has this bigot performing at his inauguration "gotcha" artistry?

This is a legitimate issue, that is all over the news, and has provoked alot of anger from liberal and gay groups.

frankly, i do not care who this guy is...he means nothing to me. I could give two shits about an evangelist and even less about what he thinks about gay rights...

it seems strange that you would refer to me as a "gotcha" artist, considering this is hardly a "gotcha"...it is all over the news...and many gay groups are extremely pissed off.

since i do not belong to a gay group or an evangelical group, ultimately i do not care...

however, since i am a supporter of gay rights, i find it decidedly offensive that Obama would choose this particular evangelist, considering how many of his supporters are genuinely hurt and upset by this.

no skin off my back. i am not evangelical, i am not gay, nor am i an Obama supporter.

As far as i am concerned, it is pretty clear that the gay rights issue with Obama is going to be just like it was with the clinton's...only slightly less non-existent. he needed their votes, he got them, but when it comes to actually sticking his neck out for them, he won't, be it on gay marriage or don't ask don't tell.

it is not politically in his interest.

Insert knee-jerk "the sky is falling" thread.

where is a "the sky is falling" thread? This is a rather insulting choice, and a stupid mistake. This will not cause the sky to fall...but it is a legitimate question. Why choose to do something he knows will offend the gay community, when he could have simply chose a simple, non-political, local preacher, with no axe to grind and no public following of lunatics?

If legitimate questions can no longer be asked of a president's choices, then i am sorry, we should all just move to Russia...since Putin has just sponsored legislation to make critical dissent and to label critics "traitors" and have them arrested for 20 years, i think the only difference would be the lack of traitorous descriptions and prison.



Follow the Limbaugh model (grandiose indignation with a dose of sarcasm ((veiled or brazen, depending on....hmm....whimsy?)
)

I asked very legitimate questions in the post...it was hardly "the Limbaugh Model"

I asked
- why did he get a noted anti-gay bigot to perfom the invocation
(a very legitimate question, i believe, or should we not question bigots?)

I stated
- It seemed Insulting (it certainly is to his gay supporters)
- It was bizarre (it is, as a choice)
- and it was totally imprudent (it was...look at the predictable storm, that will distract from the importance of the event if this man speaks)

I asked
- "how do his gay supporters feel about this guy Warren who strongly supported the gay marriage ban in CA. , delivering the invocation at the Inauguration?" (since i am not gay, should i not ask how his gay supporters feel about this, for their opinion? Apparently not)

I Stated
- "talk about insulting your supporters...." (and that is an insult to gay supporters, whether you acknowledge it or not, because the initial reaction i am seeing, many gays are hurt, offended, upset, angry and a combination)

I Stated
- "i thought Obama was supposed to be so savvy and smart."
(everyone says so, yet this is a big mistake, andn ot smart or savvy at all. In fact, it was pretty obviously a huge problem waiting to happen. A smart person would simply have selected a simple non-controversial pastor.)

And Asked
- "why would he do something that silly?" (Well, why?)

And Stated
- "I really hope he shows better judgment then that in office. "
(and i hope to hell he does...because screwing up something so obvious, on a topic as non-controversial as his flipping inauguration, is very strange)


because it seems to satisfy some inherent need to moan and rabble-rouse (and it will be met with glee by a certain segment of the populace who react like a child being handed a Hershey bar).

this is a political forum. this is a political issue at the moment. considering the gay community is furious in the news about this, how exactly is discussing the news issue "rabble-rousing" ? There would be no rabble being roused, had he not made such a dumb decision, and those doing the rousing, are in fact people who were staunch allies and supporters of his.

If questioned about it, go on the offensive, and, if possible, make specious comparisons by the dozen.

what specious comparisons have been made?

He has created this issue, and it is obviously a big deal to the gay groups who supported him.

People have a right to criticize imprudent decisions taken by politicians...Obama is almost the president now. He has responsibilities. This is not a campaign anymore where he can say one thing and do another and make soaring speeches without having to act on them.

He is the president-elect, and this shows very bad judgment towards a group of people that supported him passionately.

every decision he makes from now on, he will be criticized or praised for. deal with it. people have the right to express dissent, and disagree with him if they happen to see things a different way.

people on here complaining about Obama have no less of a right to do so then those who complain endlessly about Bush do.

the fact is, Bush will be gone, thankfully, in two months...after that, Obama is president...and guess what, as president, the citizens have the right to disagree and question your policies.

Cite sources, but it's not really necessary that they bear any relation to the topic or the truth.

what sources do not bear any relation to the topic or the truth?

the sources are all over the news at the moment.

The statements by the gay groups have released nationally.

Googling Rick Warren in Google News, brings you a zillion results of the issue that is going on.

if posters are so childish that they cannot look on the front page of CNN, which is now exploding with coverage of this, they should be complaining about the lack of citable sources.

is the CNN He3adline "Obama's Inaugural Choice Sparks Outrage" not obvious enough?

It is now all over US News and World Report and every major news service.

I do not see any inaccuracy reported in this thread regarding this man, his stance or problematic sourcing.

Many threads tend to be overly critical of Obama for trivialities.

this is not one of them.

this is a legitimate question that he must answer...if you don't think so, tell that to the gay groups outraged by this topic...not to me.

ultimately, i don't care since i won't watch the inauguration anyway.

but if you notice, i asked the gay people on here what they thought of it.

i rendered an opinion and asked a question of those most likely to be directly affected or possibly offended.

it is a legitimate question, and considering Obama has 4 and possibly 8 years to go, you better get used to people legitimately questioning or criticizing him.

people have the right to criticize the president....he does not get a free pass, whether his name is Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Obama.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If i was gay, and an Obama supporter, i'd be furious.





How do you know this? I mean, really?

Or were you just wanting to stir the pot, and this was a quick sentence you whipped up to fit the bill?


i do not actually know this. i did not say i did. I simply stated that if i was gay, (and i *DO* have a gay parent) and an obama supporter as well, my personal instinct would be to be furious.

If i chose to be gay tomorrow, it would not change how i felt today, and yes, i would be furious.

i do not need to stir the pot. People can make up their own minds, and the reaction i am seeing and reading elsewhere is one of hurt and anger.

If i wanted to stir the pot, i wouldn't have asked others' opinions of it. I would have simply told every gay here that they should immediately go and march with torches to Obama's house, and burn it down....they should immediately take to the streets chanting and protesting.

i don't tell people how to think or what their intentions should be.

so kindly don't tell me what my intentions were.

I have every right to ask the gay posters here what their feelings are.
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
138
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
"If I were the Green Lantern, I'd crusade against Obama because he reads Marvel comics." This is fun...
Obama reads Marvel Comics!?!?! :confused: :eek: Everyone knows DC Comics are better! Why didn't this come out before the election? :confused: This is critical information of which the voting public should have been made aware.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Rick Warren.
apparently gay groups are going shit-house over it.
the news is all over the place

and i am not ranting. I am simply curious because of the large percentage of gay posters we have here, who, to my surprise, have not seemed to mention it yet.

If? So instead you posted this thread to stir an already boiling pot. :12:

In case you did not notice, QT, this is a political forum. Considering there was not a thread on it when i posted this thread, there was no "boiling pot", was there?

so what should we discuss in the political forum then? Bunny Slippers? Chicken Soup.

spare me the absurdity. Look at all the threads on this first page, tell me what they are about...lo and behold...politics...so quit bitching...

so why if you did not like the whole boiling pot thing, did you feel the need to start on entirely new thread on the same topic? That makes sense.

:rolleyes:
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
It does present a nice little game we could all play. [Actually, some folks have been playing it for years already] It's kind of like Straw Man, but with the added wrinkle that one injects oneself into the bullshit.
"If I were a conservative Republican, Bush's eradication of habeas corpus would have sent me through the roof since it's such an un-conservative thing he did, and I most definitely wouldn't have defended his actions."

I am not a conservative republican, and it made me very angry. I despise him for it.

My cousin is a conservative republican, the pre-1980 religious right type of conservative...and we went nuts and hates Bush over it.




"If I were an Independent, the fact that no Independent candidate in 487,238 years has been worth a shit, or garnered more than 12 votes, would really have me reconsidering my party registration"

Sorry, but there have been several independent candidates that have been worth a shit, (Perot 19.7 million votes, and 8 million votes, Anderson 5.7 million votes, Wallace 9.9 million votes, Teddy Roosevelt (prog) 4 million votes of 14)

many have garnered more than 12 votes, and no i would not ever re-consider my party registration, since independent is not a "party". If you are asking if i would change to a corrupt party, no i would not either.




"If I had a bigger dick, it would actually suck because it wouldn't get as hard"

I wouldn't know. Hardly, the same as my analogy.

"If I were a major asshole, I would care more about scoring political points on a web forum than I do about the goodwill of mankind"


interesting...if i were a major asshole i would care more about making snide analogies that are not in fact similar to the one i was taking issue with, to care more about scoring political points on a web forum, than i do about the goodwill of mankind.

obviously, all posters on a large penis site are interested in productively spending their time working on the goodwill of mankind than posting on the forum.



"If I were the Green Lantern, I'd crusade against Obama because he reads Marvel comics"

I do not read comics, so i have no clue what this analogy means.



This is fun...

it is detracting from your time spent working on insuring the goodwill of mankind though, wouldn't you say?
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,328
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
i do not actually know this. i did not say i did. I simply stated that if i was gay, (and i *DO* have a gay parent) and an obama supporter as well, my personal instinct would be to be furious.

If i chose to be gay tomorrow, it would not change how i felt today, and yes, i would be furious.

i do not need to stir the pot. People can make up their own minds, and the reaction i am seeing and reading elsewhere is one of hurt and anger.

If i wanted to stir the pot, i wouldn't have asked others' opinions of it. I would have simply told every gay here that they should immediately go and march with torches to Obama's house, and burn it down....they should immediately take to the streets chanting and protesting.

i don't tell people how to think or what their intentions should be.

so kindly don't tell me what my intentions were.

I have every right to ask the gay posters here what their feelings are.

You can wrangle the rhetoric till the cows come home. You DID say:

"If I was gay and an Obama supporter, I'd be furious." That was the extent of your original comment.

Lo these many months of lpsg political forum-dom, I've yet to see you back down from even the most minute point, when challenged. You make lots of impressive sounding statements in your defenses. You write well. I think I'd quite enjoy talking with you "in the real world".

But sometimes you make brash statements that I find so brazen that I am compelled to respond. I am probably overly sarcastic in my replies on too many occasions.

But I won't let you off the hook for this one. (Not that you, in all likelihood, really care much.:biggrin1:)

And we could 'round and 'round all night. I'm going to bed, though.

Cheers
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Come on, Flashy...i generally have alot of respect for your posts and points of view. But this is really laying an egg. I am betting that this Reverand is towing his churches line on that issue. As so many churches do. Including the church choice of mr.bush. How this is a reflection on Barack Obama's personal point of view really escapes me. I think that you are capable of painting with a less BROAD brush. I could disaprove of homo-sexuality as a personal choice for myself, Does that make me Homo-phobic? Ideally, this should serve to illustrate why seperation of CHURCH and STATE is so important.

I am completely for the separation of church and state.

In fact, i would rather there be no religion whatsoever at the inauguration of our nation's president. A christian does not speak for me as a Jew, so why would i want someone who does not represent my religion speaking as the "de-facto" national religion?

the fact is, all this could have been avoided, by simply using a bit of foresight, and selecting a kindly old pastor from a simple church in washington, with no political affiliations, no axe to grind, and non-interested in dabbling in political issues (like the gay rights bill in california) to perform the invocation.

how difficult would that be? Select a simple pastor, non-political, who nobody has a problem with, to deliver a simple prayer, not a guy who is a lightning rod for confrontation and controversy.

this is a stupid move. it would be stupid if Bush did it, stupid if Clinton did it, and it is stupid now that Obama has done it.

because it is going to detract from an important and historic occasion, not to mention it is going to upset and hurt alot of gay people who are in fact already very upset about this.

so i ask you...what would be the problem getting a simple, non-political, non-controversial pastor from a simple church in D.C. to say a simple invocation? Why ask for trouble instead?
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
138
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
so why if you did not like the whole boiling pot thing, did you feel the need to start on entirely new thread on the same topic? That makes sense.
Unlike you, I felt the need to post actual facts from a reliable source rather than incomplete sentences and ranting rhetoric. I started a new thread so as not to take over your thread.:cool:
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You can wrangle the rhetoric till the cows come home. You DID say:

"If I was gay and an Obama supporter, I'd be furious." That was the extent of your original comment.

where did i say i didn't say that? I even re-quoted it in my last response to you. i don't need to wrangle the rhetoric any more than you parse the prose, pardon the pun.

i never denied it, and i stand by it. If i decided to be gay tomorrow, it owuld not change how i feel politically, and that is a fact. i am in full support of gay marriage. period. This man is a scumbag, and obama's invite to him is an insult.
Lo these many months of lpsg political forum-dom, I've yet to see you back down from even the most minute point, when challenged.

when i am wrong, i back down and apologize, i have yet to have been proven wrong enough to change my opinions, and i have not seen you yourself or anyone else here back off their opinions either, even when they have been proven conclusively wrong on facts. you included. Phil Ayesho, doesn't nor do many others here. You can argue facts, you can't argue opinions when they are unproveable.

If you say by dec 17 2010 Microsoft is going to go down from here and i say it is going to go up from here, their is not a shred of proof that either of us is right. until 2010. so no, i won't back down my opinions same as nobody else here does, unless confronted with facts that prove my opinion or beliefs to be wrong.



You make lots of impressive sounding statements in your defenses.

and you and others do not?


You write well. I think I'd quite enjoy talking with you "in the real world".

perhaps.

But sometimes you make brash statements that I find so brazen that I am compelled to respond.

that is your choice....but if you look at the history of our interactions, it is always you who follows me into a thread to critique or criticize...I never follow you in this forum to take issue with you, nor do i ever criticize you except in my own defense...you consider my statements brash, when they are in fact not at all...they are simply my opinion based on a more reality based, if albeit, harsher look at the nature of things, mostly involved in politics, economics, and international relations.

I do not pretend to sugarcoat my opinions. i do not. We don't live in that world. I'd like very much if we lived in the John Lennon "Imagine" version of the world. That world does not exist though.


I am probably overly sarcastic in my replies on too many occasions.

usually. you will notice i am never sarcastic to you, except in response, mainly because i do not care to make the first attack against people who i have had good relations with in the past via PM.


But I won't let you off the hook for this one. (Not that you, in all likelihood, really care much.:biggrin1:)

I wouldn't expect you too, and no, i don't really care ultimately, since i believe you are posturing, to the same degree everyone else does on this forum.

And we could 'round and 'round all night. I'm going to bed, though.

Cheers

and I am going to watch Deadwood.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Unlike you, I felt the need to post actual facts from a reliable source rather than incomplete sentences and ranting rhetoric. I started a new thread so as not to take over your thread.:cool:


yes, i guess the statements from the two gay groups were incomplete and ranting....considering they were each copied and pasted in full from the press releases. :rolleyes:
 

pym

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Posts
1,365
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
I am completely for the separation of church and state.

In fact, i would rather there be no religion whatsoever at the inauguration of our nation's president. A christian does not speak for me as a Jew, so why would i want someone who does not represent my religion speaking as the "de-facto" national religion?

the fact is, all this could have been avoided, by simply using a bit of foresight, and selecting a kindly old pastor from a simple church in washington, with no political affiliations, no axe to grind, and non-interested in dabbling in political issues (like the gay rights bill in california) to perform the invocation.

how difficult would that be? Select a simple pastor, non-political, who nobody has a problem with, to deliver a simple prayer, not a guy who is a lightning rod for confrontation and controversy.

this is a stupid move. it would be stupid if Bush did it, stupid if Clinton did it, and it is stupid now that Obama has done it.

because it is going to detract from an important and historic occasion, not to mention it is going to upset and hurt alot of gay people who are in fact already very upset about this.

so i ask you...what would be the problem getting a simple, non-political, non-controversial pastor from a simple church in D.C. to say a simple invocation? Why ask for trouble instead?
As you know, i have a jewish mother too. Does it particulary concern me if this guy represents my point of view? Not to much i have to say. I've not put alot of emphasis in spirituality to guide me through my life. More of a protean, will to live, git er done type. Jack London's body of work has served as a compass for me since childhood. A religous experiance for me is a joint and a walk through the forest. I've no umbrage at the thought of your KINDLY old PASTOR delivering the INVOCATION. But i also don't want to second guess what the nature of this Reverand is or is not. As far as i know the episcopalions are the only really gay friendly denomination{i am no expert here}. I think most Christian denoms frown upon Homosexuality. That is a battle that i am not going to shoulder. It is not my cause....i have too many others that are more pressing to me. The Black Church is something i am sure most white people DO NOT Understand. I am also fairly sure that Rev. Wright was and is fairly representative of the Black community preacher style. Who am i to question there community and congregational style? It might seem incendiary to a white audience. But it is what it is. It holds the Black community together in there OWN way. And it was NEVER an issue before this election cycle. Sorry Flashy.....i'm not indignant enough about this issue to call out Barack on it. It's his choice not mine.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
the fact is, all this could have been avoided, by simply using a bit of foresight, and selecting a kindly old pastor from a simple church in washington, with no political affiliations, no axe to grind, and non-interested in dabbling in political issues (like the gay rights bill in california) to perform the invocation.

It could also be avoided if you wouldn't try to escalate this so-called issue to hysterical proportions. :rolleyes:

The fact is, even with hiring a anti-gay priest to conduct the invocation at his inauguration, Obama himself still has a stance on gay issues that is more positive than negative. Admit it... you're hoping that people would get angry because you're also hoping that most gays & lesbians are expecting Obama to be 100% supportive on everything and anything a homosexual wants. We know damn well that he's not going to throw a bunch of fairy dust around our nation and make homosexuality perfectly acceptable in all walks of life. So stop with the phony outrage. Besides, how naive do you expect gay people to be? Do you know many high profile, pro-gay religious reverends are there in America? Any names come to mind? Don't worry, I'll wait...

In fact, most anti-Obama rhetoric on this board circulates around that very concept... opponents act as if the people who voted for him are expecting him to be 100% supportive of their own personal wants, and that's just impossible.
 
Last edited: