Obama's strange bedfellow
The political risks of reconciliation
Obama's strange bedfellow
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
We’ve posed this question before:
Is it feasible to believe that Barack Obama can reach across the cultural divide, in the spirit of reconciliation, without undercutting core progressive principles and infuriating his own supporters?
The answer is, no. But Obama doesn’t seem perturbed by the prospect of angering his base. Clearly, in the interest of building bridges and establishing a nonpartisan tone, he considers such fallout to be acceptable collateral damage.
Which certainly explains why he has chosen pastor Rick Warren, a Christian conservative leader and adamant foe of gay marriage and stem cell research, to deliver the Inauguration Day invocation.
This is the same Rick Warren who, notwithstanding his affable manner, considers abortion rights, gay rights, and stem cell research to be immoral issues and therefore “non-negotiable.” This is the same guy who has equated gay marriage with polygamy, child molestation, and incest; and who supported the November referendum banning gay marriage in California (by contrast, Obama opposed the referendum). In essence, Warren is just a friendlier version of Christian conservative leader James Dobson; they differ mostly on style, not substance.
The choice of Warren was announced yesterday; not without reason, prominent gay activists quickly went berserk. Joe Solomonese, president of the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign, wrote Obama a letter: “You have tarnished the view that (gay people) have a place at your table…Rev. Warren is not a moderate pastor who is trying to bring all sides together. Instead, Rev. Warren has often played the role of general in the cultural war.”
And Kevin Naff, editor of the Washington Blade, characterized Obama’s decision as “a slap in the faces of the millions of (gay) voters who so enthusiastically supported him…This tone-deafness to our concerns must not be tolerated. We have just endured eight years of endless assaults on our dignity and equality from a president beholden to bigoted conservative Christians. The election was supposed to have ended that era. It appears otherwise.”
But gay leaders are not the only people who feel betrayed. People for the American Way, a longtime Washington group that tracks the religious right, said in a statement that the decision to have Warren deliver the invocation is “a grave disappointment” that “further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans.” (Meanwhile, one liberal blogger dismissed Warren as "James Dobson in Dr. Phil's goatee.")
It’s tempting to simply ignore this episode; after all, does it really matter who delivers the Inaugural invocation? It’s just a symbolic gesture, and it hardly means that Obama will conspire with Warren on substantive policy-making. On the other hand, Obama himself has argued persuasively that words do matter. Here are some of Warren’s words, uttered in opposition to gay marriage:
“It is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about…I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”
And here are some words from a recent interview, sort of akin to how whites talked 50 years ago, when they boasted that they knew some Negroes:
“I have many gay friends. I’ve eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church. (Wife) Kay and I gave given millions of dollars…helping people who got AIDS through gay relationships. So they can’t accuse me of homophobia.”
By choosing Warren, it’s clear what message Obama is trying to send. He wants to foster more dialogue with ideological opponents (Warren is open to talking about global warming), and perhaps to forge closer ties between Democrats and evangelical Christians. Indeed, at a press conference this morning, he said: "It is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on some social issues." But by choosing Warren to bless his historic Inaugural, he is essentially blessing Warren – in essence, vetting Warren as a mainstream moderate in front of a mass television audience.
And that brings us full circle: Will there come a point when Obama risks building one bridge too far?
I'm a big Obama fan, but this was a mistake. AHiredGun
He sits in the church of a racist, anti-American and controversial pastor for 20 years, has him baptize his children, marry him and his wife and it is no problem. Much ado about nothing. Invite a controversial pastor to deliver a five minute or less invocation one time and it's the end of the world? Explain this to me. I am genuinely stumped why this is such a travesty yet Rev Wright is not a problem for hm. Ramon
This is typical of B Hussein Obama. According to a report I saw on PBS' Frontline, he welcomed conservatives and often gave them assignments over liberals during his tenure at the Harvard Law Review. If you want to make an omelet, you've got to break some eggs. You can't build a broad coalition without bringing in dissenting viewpoints. What I find curious (possibly because I haven't experienced the discrimination personally) is how intolerant and close-minded the homosexual extremists can be. I guess they're just fighting fire with fire. Phrossty
I have no problem with it. Perhaps it is no more than a thanks for treating him fairly @ the Saddlebrook town hall meeting. Seems to me like a logical starting point to trying to bring people together. You've thrown this guy a bone, now you see where the relationship goes, if Warren stays hardline, then you address it. Seems consistne with his message. You have to build trust and mutual understanding before you start mnaking requests/demands. Start dialogue. Throw the guy a bone. gee1971
Amazing how you're only allowed to have liberal viewpoints in this country anymore. I thought liberals were all about being tolerant of opposing viewpoints?? doorspj24
The reason America is hated around the world today -- or at least, one reason -- is that we refuse to speak to anyone who might not agree with us. Talking to those who differ with you is the only way to build understanding, respect and, if need be, a live-and-let-live peace. I disagree with Warren, too, but I would sit down and talk to him. If we don't learn to start doing this we'll always be as divided as we have the past eight years. NigeltheMastiff
In the how far we have fallen category: People who CONTINUE to believe as others have for thousands of years that homosexuality should not be condoned are now the ones on the defensive, having to defend their beliefs against a civil rights comparison of homosexual behavior and one's ancestry, race or religion. The "gay marriage" issue is relatively new because even gays didn't have the idea in their mind 40 years ago,let alone have the nerve to even bring it up in polite company. WriteWinger
I think it's a mistake. You can build a bridge to one community without tearing another down. He can have dialogue with the religious right without having the guy give the convocation. And the comparison to Rev. Wright is bogus. Obama publicly repudiated Wright when the Rev. went too far. Djoko Pritza
I understand the gesture of reaching across the aisle, but if I were gay, I'd probably take it as a slap in the face also. This isn't about liberals not accepting other people's viewpoints (Phrossty, you'd make a better point if you didn't start with B Hussein Obama), this is about a group of people who either are discriminated against or at the very least think that they are discriminated against feeling that the candidate that they heavily supported has now decided to give a big stage to a public person, Warren, who is a strong supporter of their either real or perceived discrimination. In 2004 if Bush had put a gay Episcopalian bishop (or a UU minister) on the stage at the inauguration, do you think the evangelicals would have simply said it was ok and that he was reaching across the aisle? donde
Obama is a snake and he will turn on anybody to further his political ambitions. I told you so! CD75
America has become a place where it's "wrong" to have morals and values. If you're against something like gay marriage or abortion you better go run and hide and shut up. doorspj24
As you liberals and loons would not listen back in the summer, the Rev. Wright thing was relevant, because it shows that Obama will throw anybody under the bus when it is in his best interest. Of course, you liberals and loons did not want to hear that back then. The conservatives were right, and you were wrong. Admit it. CD75
Progress or lack thereof on gay rights, abortion etc still rests with Obama. Let us all treat Rev Warren as the invited guest that he is ! And with all the messes Obama has correcting and fixing the Bush depression - let's get him right to work ! ModerateMarge
Who cares who gives the invocation? Back to the financial mess: Repost from last blog; Phrossty, I'm just an ordinary citizen so pardon my ignorance:) Can you explain the role that Freddie and Fannie play in the housing market and securities? Should they have played by different rules than other institutions since tax $$$ were at stake? Also, did the Community Reinvestment Act have anything to do with this problem in your opinion? Thanks! NEPhilly
marge, there you go again calling it a depression! Are you just lowering the economic bar for Obama to jump over? Please show us the link where we our economy is in a recession! I think it is nothing but campaign rhetoric and the campaign is over, you won! Consumer confidence has suffered because of irresponsible comments like yours! NEPhilly
The reality of life is that we will all at some point have to deal with others that hold very different points of view. I tend to think that those who cite religion for their anti-gay opinions are probably just very uncomfortable with homosexuality in general. And since the Bible tells them that it is a sin, they find it easy to denounce it as unnatural and wrong. But let's not forget that the inauguration is for all Americans, even those with whom we disagree. Having Warren play a part doesn't mean Obama has changed his position. In fact, he may have opened a dialogue that just might shift Warren's position a bit. Who knows? We're all so used to being offended and seeing slights where they may only be a reaching out. I wish the gay community could be calmer and see this as a possible opening -- but it probably won't. In any case, Warren will only be on for a few minutes. NigeltheMastiff
Dialogue, building bridges, respecting all points of view... the road to an America that reflects all her people is a long journey. Hopefully each time one group makes a gesture we can use that moment to move forward. stevesalem
Richard and you liberals are such hypocrites. You get all worked up and bent out or shape over a 2 minute invocation, yet you were silent when it became known Obama embraced a racist pastor who preached hate and anti-American views from the altar for 20 years. You "secular-progressives" are shameful and an embarrasment to the real America. CD75
Personally I wish there was no invocation at all, since there's no way to reconcile all the different religious traditions in this country with a single speaker without falling into utter banality. But it seems like a good strategic step for Obama to use a fairly progressive evangelical pastor to do this job. Gay organizations are like all other one-issue coalitions (anti abortion, NRA, etc.)--they can't see how they fit into the big picture. Whoever intones the usual nonsense at the invocation, the Obama administration will certainly be far more tolerant of gays than any republican administration could be. And NE, your question is a good one and I'd like to know the answer myself--the media have not clarified this, probably because there are no reporters who understand the issue. liberal
Rooting for a depression as Marge is doing to further a political goal is about as sick as it gets. CD75
NE, I wish you were right that this is just another recession, not as bad as the 70s. My retirement fund and increasing number of jobless friends and acquaintances seem to say otherwise. If i thought happy talk could raise my 401(k), I'd be the happiest talking guy on the internet. liberal
Rick Warren is the likely replacement for Bill Graham. He is sensible, thoughtful and an extrodinary human being. He represents what is right about Christianity. Having him center stage is good for American and the world. vc bear
lib, 'happy talk' can help consumer confidence, thus raising economic activity and that would ultimately raise your 401k! I would be willing to bet what's left of my 401k that the economic talk (recession and worst economy since great depression) in the MSM and Marge's nonsense will turn happy on Jan21. I will be interesting to see! The Congress needs to have real hearings as to who is to blame for this multi-trillion dollar mess! Bernie Madof will go to jail for what he has done and that was 'only' $50 billion of rich people's money! Someone has to go to jail for this mess and it is making me very angry that no one cares to find out what happened! We should have let all those companies go bankrupt, AIG, Citi, Fannie, Freddie, etc. All of them! NEPhilly
I like to emphasize the president-elect's middle name if only because it clouds narrow-minded peoples' judgment. I sure hope the point wasn't totally lost. I replied to NEPhilly about CRA's on yesterday's blog. As for a recession, the National Bureau of Economic Research said the recession began in Dec. 2007. http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081201/business_us_usa_economy_recession.html Phrossty
Comment removed.
Phrossty, I thank you for answering my question! I am really interested. What is Fannie/Freddie's purpose in existing and why is the govt. involved in these companies? NEPhilly- You would think that the left would ideologically be against the invocation in it's entirety. Obama's not trying to build bridges here. He agrees with Warren on gay marriage, plain and simple. Another thing DP, doesn't the left consider gay rights, abortion rights, stem cell research, along with other issues such as global warming to be "non-negotiable" also? You condemn the right for their rigidity but once again ignore the left's absolutist mentality. jmc
How come nobody puts the word "embryonic" in front of stem cell research. Polman did not put that word in there, which is what Warren is against....embryonic stem cell research. I do not believe anybody is against stem cell research, just when it includes discarded embryo's. Can't people in favor of that argue for it honestly and openly? As for "gay civil rights", while you can tell if a person is a member of a recial minority in most cases just by appearance, can you ascertain if a person is gay by looks? Unless a person comes out and proclaims their homosexuality, how would anybody know their orientation? As for marriage, it is not a right. Voting is a right. Driving, home ownership and marriage are a privilege...not a right. tjhaol
embryonic stem cell research - using a dead baby as a body parts farm. Ethical? No. Of course liberals have no ethics. ("if science can do it, it must be OK") CD75
Marriage is a privilege? That's a new one. And you get to decide who's privileged enough to obtain one? donde
I suppose we should be docile and pliant and let Obama off on this ;-{ Warren apparently has agreed to "discussions" with Obama in an effort to opening up dialog, with hopes of better understanding and acceptance from both sides. We'll see. I am not holding my breath on this one, given Warren's disgusting history of hate and discrimination advocacy. If this were the other way around and a Republican had invited a pro-choice or pro-gay rights religious figure to their inauguration, the howling from the right-wing screechers would not end until they were placated. There is a difference between being inclusive/open and being a dupe - a concept that most Republicans don't seem to get. See: "Religious" Right, Gay Republicans, Black Republicans, Evangelicals, Pro-"Life"ers, Republican Women, Republican Minorities, Working Class and Poor Republicans, Right Wing Hate Radio lsiteners/Fox viewers, etc. Obama has been pretty smart with his choices so far, so I will wait for this play out ... maybe. ReadyAimFire
I don't agree with everything Obama stands for. He picked Warren because he agrees with him. I think same sex couple deserve the right to make their unions official. I still think Obama will be a good president. It's impossible for one man to satisfy everyone. This proves that he isn't a flaming liberal. He really is a centrist. I don't have to agree with everything he says or does. We need compromise in this country. I believe that is what Obama stands for. James TL
James TL: Cute. Nice way to rationlize being thrown under the bus. You could also say that Obama needs to take a stand against intolerance and stand up for human rights. Do you have a spine? CD75
Right, who cares who gives the invocation? Let's let an Islamic cleric or a Jewish rabbi do it. I'm sure no one would mind. But seriously, just let a judge do it. p-diddy
CD75: Do you receive $5 from the RNC everytime you use the expression "under the bus"? p-diddy
Why is it that if Warren is against gay marriage he a homophobe, but Obama, who is also against gay marriage, is not? As for marriage being a privilege, I agree it is not a right (such as voting or abortion are deemed as rights), but I would hardly call it a privilege. Having been married twice, I don't feel as if I have been privileged. However, it is something that the states are allowed to regulate (which is why they can deny drivers licenses or put restrictions on them, such as for eye-glasses, medication for epileptics, etc.). They should be allowed to regulate marriage as their voters see fit. tom - wilmington, de
CD75 - You can't please everybody. Nor should the president(-elect) try to. Even Jesus ticked off some hard-line, traditional, conservative, religious leaders. (John 8:58 - 59) Phrossty
Phrostty: Jellyfish. If that helps you feel better about your double standard, keep on living in your fantasy world. Obama had a real chance to make a statement about gay rights and he sold out. CD75- Hmm, I think some people do deserve to be thrown under the bus. After this election, it is nice to see the bus driver gets an opinion in the matter.
If marriage is a privilege, then at one point voting was a privilege whose qualifications included race and sex. I'm not personally vested in the gay marriage debate (I'm not gay and I'm happily married to a woman) but I don't see why limiting rights to one group of people is somehow alright. If one's religion limits who can or can not be married, then they should not allow those people to be married in their private church. We used to limit the rights of blacks and we, at least most Americans, now see that was a horrible thing. Just because a segment of the population, be it a minority or a majority, think that gays should not be given the same rights as others does not make it right. If I think that people who believe in an evangelical christian religion are immoral, can I fight and say that they shouldn't be given the right to marry? I lived in Massachusetts when gay marriage was made legal, and it did not devalue my marriage, cats and dogs did not start living together, the sun rose the next day, and a plague of locusts did not overtake the countryside. donde
Donde, wonderful post. I totally agree. NigeltheMastiff
I wrestle with my own double-standards (read: double-mindedness and hypocrisy). I don't need to worry about politicians' statements, thank you. Since you troll so much under the influence of haterade, I'm curious. What statement were you hoping the Pres-elect would have made about gay rights? I thought your hard-right viewpoint precluded gays from having rights (beyond human and civil). Phrossty
NEPhilly, you are king of disingenuousness. If you were seriously interested in things like Fannie and Freddie, you'd check them out on the Internet. Rather, I suspect, you're trying to make a point:) You have posed this question before, you know ... Djoko Pritza
Djoko, the internet has many opinions on both sides! Whatever the writer of the article thinks that is what comes through. Phrossty worked in the subprime industry and I wanted to get his/her professional opinion! What point am I trying to make? I am angry that no one is going to try and find out what happened! Trillions of dollars have been spent! Did you know more money than has been spent on this than on every war in American history. Every War! I keep calling for congressioanl hearings, but I don't think that will get it done! I think we need an independent counsel appointed by the President to get to the bottom of this fiasco! I want people to go to jail over it, what is disingenuous about that? Should we just sweep it under the rug? Don't you want to know what happened and why? NEPhilly
NEPhilly - Here are some links Google provided. Feel free to report back on your findings... http://hnn.us/articles/1849.html .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_National_Mortgage_Association +++++++++ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac ********** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac ======== I'm especially interested in hearing your viewpoint on whether the cliche "the rich just keep getting richer" is a truism or fantasy. If true, is it fate and luck or by design? If by design, is it the fault of Dems or Repubs or simply a matter of human nature being corrupt (or something else entirely)?? Time's yours. Phrossty
Phrossty and Dorko: Obama's $850 million "recovery" plan is silly and flawed. It is like increasing your kids' allowance just to stimulate more spending in your household. CD75
NEPhilly, I am one of those who finds economics totally incomprehensible. I think there are a number of us. But from everything I've read, it seems like much of this began with deregulation in the Clinton era and expanded in the Bush era. And apparently, many of the bright young things coming out of America's best business schools devised all these ridiculous financial instruments that bundled a lot of bad loans together. The legitimate ones (probably like yours and mine) were put on top so the whole thing looked like a good investment. Meanwhile, mortgage companies were putting pressure on their lending officers to exaggerate income, making the loans very poor risks. It was all bound to come crashing down at some point. Tom? All you other financial gurus? Do I have it vaguely correct? NigeltheMastiff
You liberals are getting your first taste of bad medicine from Obama. You were such fools during the election beleiving every word from the messiah's mouth. Obama is just another dirty pol. He promised you the world during the campaign, but he will break those promises over and over again. The difference between Obama and McCain supporters is the McCain supporters were not so naive and dumb to beleive everything that was said. The next big Obama "under the bus" moment will probably be Gitmo. Get ready to cry, cry again. CD75
Nigel - I'm no expert, but that sounds pretty close. i have two things to add to make it more fun. 1) the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) - which gives some people the false notion that banks were compelled to underwrite loans to underqualifed, low-income borrowers - seemed to spur the lending spree you mention and adds a little political/racial gasoline to the fire. 2) The Collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), specifically the synthetic CDO's aka Credit Default Swaps helped the inevitable collapse you mention go to 11. SOURCE = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap Phrossty
CD, what an unhappy person you must be to feel so driven to derision of others. You're always condescending. You always resort to name-calling. I kept thinking that if everyone else conversed with civility in spite of their differences, you would follow the example and do so as well. Apparently I was wrong. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by being so ugly and unpleasant all the time. NigeltheMastiff
Fannie's inception during the great depression (ironic huh) by FDR was to lend people money for homes that banks didn't have! It borrows $$$ from foreign investors (no wonder the world economy went bad too) to provide low interest loans for homeowners in the US. It is exempt from taxation (what) and oversight and has implied govt backing! It was privatized by LBJ in 1968 to get it off the govts books. With Freddie (which was created in 1970 so Fannie wouldn't have a monopoly by, crazy huh) they control 90% of the secondary mortgage market & their current debt was equal to 46% of the national debt! Their size was 45% bigger than any bank in the US! They are the only 2 Fortune 500 companies that do not have to report financial difficulties to the public. They are overseen by the House Finance Services subcommittee (currently chaired since 2006 by one Barney Frank) only and if there was some sort of financial collapse the govt could be (is) on the hook for hundreds of billions of $$$! Thanks Phrossty! Of course the rich get richer. The design of these companies without oversight by anyone other than Congress is at fault! How can you trade your stock but not have to have financial disclosure? When no one is looking greed takes over! Barney Frank said in August that these companies were fine and did not need more regulation. Was he lying or misinformed? The main question is did House Dems use this institution to promote giving loans to people that couldn't pay them back? And if they did, was that the cause of this financial collapse. You all decide! That is why congressioanl hearings will not work, because they were basically running the companies themselves! An independent counsel is needed to sort it all out. I'm tired now! NEPhilly
NEPhilly, Well done. You forgot to mention that, like most things political, those gov't sponsored banking programs started out with the best intention of helping out the little guy/average citizen. However, over time they morphed into monolithic feeding troughs for corrupt officials and their (usually wealthy, powerful) friends. Also, at the end of the day the total liability for the derivatives (credit default swaps) on the derivatives (mortgage-backed securities) is estimated to be 42 trillion, which is more than 3x the US GDP. It's my opinion that if every one of the insurers and banks caught in that mess were allowed to collapse, we'd be back to the barter system. Phrossty
In September 2003, Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the Republican-led Financial Services Committee, opposed Bush administration proposals for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by creating an independent agency to supervise. The proposal would have moved oversight from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the new agency. Frank stated in 2003, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."[33] Frank stated that the bill would potentially "[weaken] the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing".[33] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank NEPhilly
NEPhil, I don't doubt Barney Frank is partially to blame. But I believe this is a completely non-partisan fiasco. Don't forget your buddy Phil Graham. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle. And smoldering beneath them all is pure, unadulterated greed. I hope this abysmal situation wakes all of America so that we look in the mirror and discover our idolatry of "stuff." Does anyone really need a diamond-encrusted cell phone or a $500 pair of sneakers? Hard work and kindness toward others is so much more important. It's what we were founded on and what we used to aspire to. There's a certain beauty to simplicity (ah, there are my Quaker values again). Sorry, don't mean to preach. NigeltheMastiff
Meanwhile, how about the Inauguration Team asking the civil rights leader Reverend Dr. Joseph E. Lowery, 87, to perform the Benediction? Won't conservatives still be miffed by his comment at Correta Scott King's funeral? "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor!" *** http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/08/otsc.greenfield/index.html *** http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11237163/ *** Phrossty
Lady and Gentleman, Prominent Democrats ran Fannie Mae, the same government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) that donated campaign cash to top Democrats. And one of Fannie Mae’s main defenders in the House – Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a recipient of more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since 1989 – was once romantically involved with a Fannie Mae executive. http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080924145932.aspx Fannie and Freddie pay no taxes, are overseen by Congress, do not have to provide financial statements to the market, they have donated over $3 million dollars since 1989 to the same Congress that is supposedly regulating them! WTF! Someone needs to go to jail over this! NEPhilly
Oops. I forgot to be "fair and balanced." ***** http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184386,00.html ***** http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184470,00.html ***** http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184458,00.html ***** Phrossty
NEPhilly, I'm sure you're right. Someone should go to jail. But I doubt if anyone will. Nor will Bush/Cheney be indicted. And I think they were criminal, too. Torture? Extraordinary rendition? Tapping Americans' phones (including Quakers in Florida who were against the war)? Gitmo? All of that is just as disgusting to me as the greed and dishonesty that produced the current economic meltdown. NigeltheMastiff
NEPhilly - Let's start with Rick Davis.... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22mccain.html Phrossty
I haven't yet seen a financial breakout indicating what percentage of bad loans were held by Franny and Freddie as opposed to other mortgage entities. This would help to focus blame. But of course the folks in power really don't want us to understand this thing too clearly. liberal
Hey, CD, you have trouble with my name? It's not Dorko. Djoko Pritza
NEPhilly, I don't know what happened, and Phrossty's opinion would be, as you state, one of many; there are experts, too, online, if you'll do the work. Maybe you can enlighten the rest of us. I would like people to go to jail, too; that's not what is disingenuous. Rather, it's your repeated posing of the question as a way of flogging the issue. You won't find the answer here. Djoko Pritza
Nigel, please! If you want argue national security we can, but why connect the two subjects? Do you like our citizens not dying at the hands of terrorists? If you could have stopped 9/11 from happening by waterbording someone or tapping their phones, would you have? Everything they did was to protect America and is not criminal! If it was I'm sure Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would have jumped right on it. They didn't do anything else but preside over a financial disaster! Also, I saw where Obama is going to keep Gitmo open to keep his options open! It seems its a little more complicated to be President than to run for the office:) Now this financial meltdown is criminal and why shouldn't someone go to jail? NEPhilly
There's a paper on the internet, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1023688#, indicating that the biggest holders of CMOs, in order, are commercial banks, life insurance companies, foreign investors, and Fannie/Freddie. So if Fannie/Freddie are only in fourth place they can't well be blamed for the entire fiasco. liberal
NEP, this is where we have a deep philosophical divide. I don't think everything they did was to protect Americans, but rather to advance their own agenda. And whom should we have waterboarded to prevent 9/11? There was already intelligence out there that was ignored. I don't believe in torture, period. There are many experts who say torture doesn't work. And I believe we lose our humanity by engaging in it. Not to mention that it's against the Geneva convention. As for wiretapping, that's fine as long as there's probable cause. But warrantless wiretapping when few, if any, requests for a warrant have ever been turned down or delayed? I just think that's outside the law. NigeltheMastiff
As a liberal I'd be willing to waterboard a guy to prevent 9/11, and risk punishment for breaking the law in order to save all those people and real estate. But that's a pretty unrealistic hypothetical. How is an interrogator supposed to know this; it will almost never happen. And the hypothetical doesn't prove that torture should be legalized. Legalization would surely result in widespread abuse, as in Abu Ghraib. Don't worry; we can be pretty sure that our CIA and FBI agents are courageous enough to use hard tactics if they are sure that they are necessary, since if they are successful in thwarting a terrorist attack the likelihood of punishment is remote. liberal
Hey, NEPhilly, I've caught up with reading the results of your research. Good work! A question: You say, "In September 2003, Frank ... opposed Bush administration proposals for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." Because Frank was in the minority, why did not the Bushies just push their proposal through, as they did with most other legislation? And, with Bush's track record, it's more likely he was looking for a way to allow his cronies to more easily loot Fannie and Freddie than he was to regulate it. Djoko Pritza
I have a spine CD but it's broken now. Seriously, I'm fine with Obama's position on gay amrriage. It has little to do with me anyway. Don't have to ask you how you feel about Bush. I'm sure you like every position he's ever had on every subject except immigration. James TL
As a centrist I'm sick of paradoxical hypotheticals. Would I torture someone if I knew it would prevent 11-Sep-2001? Maybe, maybe not. (I'm not sure I agree that the administration of "truth serum" is torture.) But if I knew some specific terrorist attack was coming, then I could prevent it WITHOUT torturing anyone. If we want to legalize torture, we should simply adopt sharia law. Phrossty
NEPHILLY: Would I waterboard someone to prevent a 9/11? No, because any information obtained by torture cannot be trusted. Plus the fact that you can never know when such a terrible event will happen. If I thought someone was going to commit a heinous act like that, I would keep him (them) under surveillance, watching their every move. Military action and torture do not work. I'll give Bush credit for keeping us safe but it's really the CIA and other spy networks that are to thank for that, although Bush has been president since 9/11 (which did happen why he was president... I know I know... you think it was Clinton's fault). James TL
Tom: Your drawing an analogy between marriage and wearing glasses/getting a driver's license is nonsense. Of course marriage should be a right, just like everyone has the right to wear eyeglasses or drive. Everyone of does have the right to wear glasses, so long as they can afford it. Everyone has the right to drive, allowing for restrictions aimed at public safety. Saying that states should be able to restrict marriage on the basis of sexual orientation is an entirely different matter. Do you think gays/lesbians should be allowed to drive and wear eyeglasses? Of course you do. What is the basis for the marriage restriction? The basis is strictly a moral judgment concerning sexual preference, which has nothing to do with one's ability to be part of a successful marriage. p-diddy
Guys, it is not a hypothetical. Shiekh Khalid Mohhamed(sp) was waterboarded and spilled the beans on a whole range of terrorist activities! For a while he provided most of the intelligence we had about Al Qaeda! Who know how many American lives were saved. Cutting someone's head off is a heinous act, pretending to drowned someone is about as heinous as we get! Did they follow the Geneva Convention when they killed our civilians in 9/11? lib, you are a 'great american' even if we disagree sometimes! The problem with not legalizing it, is after the fact these FBI/CIA agents could be prosecuted for doing their job! Djoko, I was just reading the links Phrossty gave me, it is a good point you raise though:) I would have to do some more homework on that point! As for the financial meltdown, we have spent more on this than on every war America has ever fought in our history, every one! That is staggering and makes me very angry! NEPhilly
NE Philly would an opinion from our fearless leader do it for you, here's that: link http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/12/05/national/w082435S10.DTL&hw=lawmakers&sn=010&sc=436 brs50
Comment removed.
Tom: To hell with your states' rights argument; this is merely your way of absolving yourself from a clear moral issue. Do you think slavery should be a states' rights issue? Of course not. Same sex marriage is a moral issue, a fundamental question of whether public government has the right to bar individuals of the same sex from being married. I'm sick of cowards hiding behind the banner of "states' rights" when it comes to the one of the most important moral issues we face as a nation. Years from now people will look upon this as we look upon racial segregation today. p-diddy
ark: Yeah, but his morals are bad ones. p-diddy
NEPhilly: What terrorist plots were prevented as a result of the CIA's torturing of Khalid Mohammed? p-diddy
p-diddy. Is abortion murder? Phrossty
Define abortion. p-diddy
You're dodging. "[T]he removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy." ******************* http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abortion Phrossty
I'm not dodging at all. Is an "embryo" or "fetus" the same thing as a "person"? How about a "fertilized egg"? Murder, in the broad sense, is the killing of a person or other animal with malicious intent (not in self defense). I don't think anyone becomes pregnant in order to kill a fertilized egg, fetus, embryo or baby. p-diddy
While we're at it, is being gay a choice or genetic mutation? (I know. I know. The phrasing of the question is offensive. Think about it. If homosexuality is an inherited trait, then how in Darwin's name does it help the survival of the species? I'm being pseudo-clinical in my phrasing.) Anyway, gay by choice or by birth? Phrossty
p, thats classified:) Late term and partial birth abortions are murder, in my opinion. Although I am Catholic, incest and rape are legitimate reason for abortion. See, i'm reasonable! Brs50, i meant to say prove we are in a depression, not recession, it was a typo! NEPhilly
I infer that you don't believe removing an embryo or fetus from a uterus isn't murder since an embryo or fetus isn't a person or animal. Please don't sit on a jury where a mugger stabs a pregnant woman and she loses her unborn baby. Please disqualify yourself from serving by virtue of your prejudice against the victim(s). Phrossty
I think people are gay from birth. But gay marriage doesn't preclude marriage between men and women, so the evolution argument is invalid. There are more unwanted babies than there are adoptive parents in any case. p-diddy
Calm down chief. I am against late term abortions, because I also think a pregnant mother bears a responsibility for an unborn. If a mugger stabs a woman but doesn't kill her, I think the assailant should be tried for attempted murder. If a baby in the third trimester is killed in such an attack, I would support a murder charge, because women in the third trimester are usually visibly pregnant - thus it could probably be shown that the assailant had malicious intent. Here's a question for you: If the baby/fetus/fertilized egg is a "person", should the assailant be tried separately for the attack on the baby/fetus/embryo/fertilized egg and mother? p-diddy
If people are gay from birth, then you're consistent in championing for their rights. I disagree. I think it's a choice, so I don't favor "gay rights" per se. I do favor gay tolerance since we're supposed to be a "Freedom of Choice" country. I threw the abortion gasoline on the fire simply to point out that people disagree even on obvious moral issues. I'm anti-abortion (can't say pro-life as I favor capital punishment), but Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and I respect a woman's right to choose. I just wish everyone would remember the REAL choice is made BEFORE the pregnancy occurs. Phrossty
Comment removed.
Dammit. I'm a bookkeeper, not a lawyer, Jim.... Anyway, I believe the legal system charges folks with murder or manslaughter if a non-lethal assault causes a miscarriage. So, yes, there should be separate charges. Like B HUSSEIN Obama, determining personhood or when a life becomes a soul is beyond my pay scale. That's why I prefer to err on the side of caution and am against abortion. I wouldn't want to find out I've condoned the slaughter of millions in the name of "Freedom." Shall we talk about the frozen embryos next? I've got even less answers about the status of their "personhood." Phrossty
I have a very dear friend, with whom I grew up and went through a girs' school (grades 7-12). She is gay, yet she had a happy childhood, loving parents, no real problems. She has said to me before, "Do you think I would CHOOSE this life? Do you think I wanted to disappoint my parents? To live a shadow life? To hide who I am from people I don't know? To be the subject of ridicule and hatred?" She tried to go the other way (straight) but that's just not who she is. She's extremely bright, kind, generous, productive. Why should she not be accorded the same rights as I am? NigeltheMastiff
So you are saying that people choose to be homosexual, while everyone is heterosexual at birth. The vast amount of research on this contradicts your view. Also, are you saying that homosexuality does not really exist as a sexual orientation, but is merely a "choice" that is not based in actual sexual urges? You're on shaky ground here, Phrossty. p-diddy
the left is weird. little O is trying to drive a wedge between diferent groups of conservatives. It is a very simple action. Not a big deal from the stand point of what he is really doing. And he does not care what you think because he knows he is the most liberal man ever elected to the presidenacy and you are not going anywhere. but he is hoping the conservative religious leaders who are waffling on global warming will at least sit on the sideline while he pushes through your radical agenda to destroy the US economy. morons. dutchman
p-diddy, there seems to be a lot more unwanted 10 year olds than loving, caring, responsible parents. I don't think we should eliminate them. JimR
I didn't say I did a lot of scientific research. I said I had an opinion. Nature vs. Nurture. It's both IMHO. I know researchers are looking for the "gay" gene, but haven't found one. A brief Google search supported the "it's complicated" stand. As for NTMastiff's friend, it's a common argument against homosexuality being a choice. I counter with perhaps you're choosing AGAINST something you find even more dreadful. More importantly, in the specific area of being granted rights: 1] Marriage isn't a right. 2] Civil unions do grant the rights being sought (but don't seem to fill the "normalcy need.") I gotta go. I still lean right on the "How come the pro gay extremists are so intolerant?" question. They clamor long and loudly for acceptance, but have none for Obama choosing Warren for the invocation. Even Liberal tolerates the invocation despite his/her agnostic (I presume) leanings. Put the stones down everyone. None of us is without sin. Phrossty
If a fetus is a person, then an egg is a chicken. liberal
So Phrossty, I'm going to take a shot and say you don't know too many gay folks. Although you probably have the stereotypical flamboyantly gay man or uber butch lesbian in mind, most homosexuals are pretty normal. And none would say that they're gay by choice-like Nigel previously posted, why would they choose a life of possible rejection from all of those who are close to them and social ostricization? It's not a ploy from attention grabbing misfits. There are many instances of homosexual animals other than humans. It's not a choice, they're born that way. As for marriage not being a right, it goes back to voting used to not be a right for certain parts of the population: woman and blacks. That's not viewed as fair now, and neither will be the denial of marriage rights to same sex couples. donde
People have understood fetal development for thousands of years. After all, most people were farmers and raised livestock during most of that time. And for all that time, life has been, and still is, defined by the law as beginning at birth. The prolife people have argued for changing this, but never see fit to explain why. What is the compelling public policy reason for making such a change? In fact there isn't one. The movement is, in my opinion, based on a hysterical fear of the modern world with its hypersexuality and the increasing difficulty of controlling children, daughters in particular. liberal
State marriage laws provide benefits for married people. These benefits are available only to heterosexuals. Under the 14th amendment, a state can't enact a law that discriminates among different groups unless there is a rational basis for the discrimination. What is the rational basis for withholding the benefits of marriage from homosexuals? This is the legal question to be answered. liberal
This Obama/invocation preacher thing really highlights the absurdity and hypocrisy of raising some of the typical wedge social issues in a presidential campaign. Under the law, the federal government , at least the executive and legislative branches, have no role in permitting or prohibiting gay marriage, abortion, etc. Yet since Reagan the republicans have incessantly exploited people's strong views on these issues , knowing that republican presidents and congressmen would never have to actually be counted on any of these issues since they are not federal issues. When is the public going to catch on to this trick? And it seems that the social issues groups on the left are being fooled in the same way; guys and gals, it doesnt matter whatsoever what Obama thinks about gay marriage! It's not part of his job to deal with this issue. liberal
Liberal, you're right, yet my friend has to jump through hoops to try to leave her partner her estate. It's very difficult, and it shouldn't be. Look, I have some level of discomfort with homosexuality, but that's my problem. I don't want to foist it on others. And I really love this friend. She's been very loyal when times were tough for me. And she's such a wonderful, smart person. My girls' school class numbered only 14. We were very close, but my friend took more than 20 years after graduation to tell some of us about her life. I find that very sad. We should all be able to be whoever we are, without reservation (unless we're mass murderers, of course). NigeltheMastiff
janann, I'm not worried! You seem to always have a remark for me and no one else, why is that? lib, I am only a checkbook Catholic, but I do believe in a God! I think it is the same God that all different religions pray to whether christian, muslim, buddhist, hindu or jew. That being said, I believe partial birth and late term abortions are morally wrong, yet I also believe in the death penalty in certain cases as well! If that makes me contemptible in your eyes janann, so be it:) NEPhilly
Oh I forgot, I think most gay people are born that way! There are some however that choose that lifestyle to be cool (think lindsay lohan or anne heche) or hip or perverted! In any case, I think they should have the same rights (estates & hospital visits) and the same pitfals (divorce & splitting assets) as getting married, just call it civil union or something else and most of the arguments would die down in time! NEPhilly
Phrossty: Marriage isn't a right? What a bunch of bull. That's just another way of saying that gays shouldn't be permitted to marry, because what other criteria is there for two consenting, unmarried adults? Of course it is a right. Homophobe. p-diddy
NEPhilly: Dude, are you 8 years old? Maybe she's a bisexual. Maybe she's just curious. But I doubt anybody would have sex with someone who didn't suit their sexual preference to be "cool". p-diddy
Hey, NEPhilly, if it's the same God for all religions, whose beliefs are correct, christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus or jews? Djoko Pritza
Phrossty, I got a kick out of this passage: "I still lean right on the 'How come the pro gay extremists are so intolerant?' question. They clamor long and loudly for acceptance but..." Gee you're right! Clamoring for acceptance? How dare they! Extremists! p-diddy
Hey, NEPhilly, yet again, if, as you say, "I think they [gays, lesbians) should have the same rights (estates & hospital visits) and the same pitfals (divorce & splitting assets) as getting married," what is the source of your opposition to gay marriage? Surely, it can't just be the term? I think you're close to overcoming this illogical prejudice. Why not just put it behind you, so to speak? Djoko Pritza- Obama didn't run as pro gay, anti gun, pro abortion candidate. I don't know why anyone is shocked. He generally avoided these topics on the campaign trail. Just so you know 7 out of 10 African Americans in California voted for the ban on gay marriage
I have to laugh at some of the statements being made here about gays. Phrossty doesn't believe in "gay rights", he believes in "tolerating" them, and by "tolerating" them he means that he doesn't acknowledge homosexuality as a actual sexual orientation. p-diddy
Swedesboro, what's your point? Blacks probably aren't any different from whites in their attitudes about homosexuality. I think attitudes are changing fast, however. Gay marriage feels like an inevitability. p-diddy- p diddy- my point is that gays anger at Rick Warren's church is somewhat misguided. It was not just white Christians that voted against gay marriage. But it is much easier to save all the vitriolic hatred and protest for the White Christians. Nothing will happen to you. I would like so the gays picket in Compton.
- The White Christian is the punching bag of the left. I don't attend church, seldom do but I never thought I would see the day where the White Christian would be so demonized by activist groups and the media. We are probably only a few years from seeing Christmas banned as a federal holiday
- There is no tolerance for homosexuality in the Muslim religion but it is curious that so much of the lefts anger is aimed at Christians. I think it has more to do with Christians being such a pacifist culture. So there is not risk in Christian bashing. But there is a ton of risk in bashing Muslims which is why they are free of the bashing
- 3 inches of Snow in Vegas during Al Gore's annual " it's hot as hell " speach. That poor guy can't seem to buy a hot day. Yet the liberal global wamring hysterics lives on. LMAO
smike, it's true; muslims are much more irrational and likely to kill you for saying critical things about the prophet or allah; so i try not to goad them; white christians, however, are taught to turn the other cheek; gotta love 'em Djoko Pritza
actually, snow in vegas proves the point that the global climate is out of whack; don't worry about gore, smike; he's doing so well that running for president would have been a step down. Djoko Pritza
smike, if you want to good look at islam, read "infidel" by ayaan hirsi ali; it's definitely a perverted religion. Djoko Pritza
Swedesboro: Bullsh-t. I don't have a problem with Christians in general, but I do have a problem with the Christian Conservative movement. Swedesboro, if you think we live in a pacifist culture, you must be crazy. We live in a big fish/little fish culture. Djoko, sure you can find books about Islam as being radical, just as lefties can watch Jesus Camp and rock themselves to sleep with tales of crazy Christian youths. I went to a Quaker school as a teenager, and while I'm not a Christian, I do admire some aspects of the faith. By the same token, I care to investigate you'll find a gentler, tolerant side of Islam also - Sufism, for example. I'm not defending intolerance within Islam, Christianity or Judaism, but I don't like where this conversation is heading. An "Islam is worse than Christianity (and vice versa)" shouting match is always pointless. You want to get into body counts? This conversation started with a discussion of abortion and gay marriage. In this country, that debate is framed within Christian belief, not Islam. I would make the same arguments against Islamic belief. But it's funny, the conservative Christians love to tar Muslims, while they have much more in common with their beliefs than they do mine. p-diddy
Swedesboro, I just read your comment on global warming. Snow in Las Vegas and New Orleans? Of course, no single event can be attributed with absolute certainty to long term trends, but what's happening in the north and south poles is too dramatic to ignore. Look it up. These are not politicians, these are scientists telling us we are in danger. p-diddy
Picket Compton? That's a sure way to get zero media coverage, S-mike. p-diddy
Keep religion OUT of politics and the public square. Obama, c'mon man. I understand that you had to satisfy the racists and the bigots by publically betraying Rev. Wright but do you have to reach out to this right-winger? Why not just skip the whole invocation/prayer hypocrisy completely? ClarkU
Selecting a (one) specific Pastor comes dangerously close to promoting one specific religion. Why not have ALL religions represented in the ceremony? This will promote "unity" and no one will feel left out. We could start with all religions that start with the letter A and finish with all religions that start with the letter Z. ClarkU
Comment removed.
Djoko, none of the religions are 'right', but there is a God! As for gay marriage, call it something else and the controversy goes away, simple right? It is the same position as Obama, I think! NEPhilly- Pdiddy- nonsense. You are picking on an easy target and you know it. The easiest thing in the world is to bash christianity. Look at the Sinead O' conner who tore up a picture of the Pope on SNL
- Djoko Pritza and P Diddy- So snow in Vegas is proof of warming. That's like saying the ugly chick is so ugly she's hot. On a serious note there are many scientist who do not suscribe to Al Gore's hysterics. Including many who signed un but later recanted Gore's hysterics and theories.
We all seem to agree that inviting Warren is a microcosm of Obama strategy. It’s symbolic in that it signals the tent has room for some folks the culture-war culture might predict he would exclude. It’s not substantive except in a way that all signals are substantive, that is, it’s not a line appointment or anything: Warren will intone what he intones (surely moderate – he knows about big tents), dance at one of the inaugural balls, and then go home. In the meantime, the military are exploring changes in how they implement “don’t ask, don’t tell” and preparing for a time when Mr. Obama will strike that order down and allow gays to serve openly. Moreover, unlike gay marriage, which is decided in the states, who serves in the military is something decided by the president, so he can deliver if he wants to (and can get away with it). That will be substantive as well as symbolic. Is Mr. Obama building “a bridge too far,” as Mr. Polman wonders? I think it’s a double game. Mr. Obama is betting that he can make a deposit in one group’s “trust bank” (conservatives) to blunt opposition and that another (gays) will be mollified when he gets around to doing something substantive for them. Not bad for an insight on how Mr. Obama’s mind works – or a morning’s entertainment. Dodge
s-mike, There are also a number of scientists who do agree that there is climate change occurring. Some of them were appointed to posts and served in the current administration but have had their arms twisted to recant their scientific beliefs by non-scientific politicians. A good/bad scenario to this is that there are areas of the heavy north that will likely yield great quantities of oil. They are made available because the temperatures have risen to the point where the ice is melting making it possible to gain access through previously deep frozen paths. JimR
P-diddy: In response to the "clamor for acceptance" issue; it's not the what, it's the how. I'm hard pressed to think of a less vehement and vitriolic display of intolerance than that vocal minority. If I were truly objective (can't - I'm human), I might understand the displays of hatred as righteous anger. I'm sure I wouldn't stand by idly if I felt I were discriminated against. I just hope I would be a tad more noble in my method. Also, did you think using a slur would bolster your argument? I guess you figured that my opposing view to be so misguided as to be worthy of uncivil invective. Besides, I prefer the label "breeder" to "homophobe." ***** Donde, you're right. I don't know too many gays. I did know more gays when I was younger and my social circles were wider. My "choice" opinion was formed mostly on personal experience and observation. (Whose opinion isn't?) Is it too small a sample to be scientific? Absolutely. Is it only a viewpoint, possibly a narrow one? You betcha. Marriage isn't a right - neither is driving. Is that a poor legislative determination like Dread Scott and women's suffrage? Possibly, but only if - like blacks and women - gays are born that way. ****** Liberal makes the clearest points to me. These social, hot-button wedge issues are usually distraction issues. Is pre-marital sex, sex education, creationism, agnosticism to be discussed and regulated in the legislative halls or the home? Phrossty
OMG – some of these posts are hilarious! Astonishingly, Swedesboromike has absolutely no clue what global warming is about, even after all the proof and evidence that’s been documented. He couldn’t look more foolish or ignorant – even for him! Talk about a head up ones arse! And, Obama just gave legitimacy to Rick Warren’s hateful and discriminatory views. Really bad move, since he’s pi**ing off an already pi**ed off minority group that is organizing the biggest civil rights counter-offensive this country has ever seen. It’s gonna be one heckava Pride Month this June! rallyrally
I understand why obama did it but, I totally disagree,if you're trying to unify don't pick such a hatemonger.this guys,dobson & his ilk are proof there is no god,cause if he was he wouldn't allow all this hatred in his name. FedupDem
8 yrs of pandering to the bible thumpers is enough.this countrys going backwards thanks to religious nuts like these. FedupDem
I don't think it's a bridge too far. I think it's a bridge to nowhere. If Obama thinks reaching out and having Warren at his Inauguration will somehow appease Evangelicals, he's in for a big surprise. Evangelicals don't compromise. It's there way or the highway. I hope Obama doesn't plan on calling up his new bud Rick and asking him who he thinks he should nominate to the Supreme Court. God help us! ej610
Obama's problem is he tends to think people think the same way he does. He is someone who is able to listen to all sides of an issue and talk with all kinds of people with differing views from himself. He forms his opinions from many different angles. Unfortunately, most people don't. His choice of Warren may seem natural to him, but it's offensive to others. His Inauguration is a day for the people who helped get him elected to celebrate. Rick Warren had nothing to do with it and should not be there. ej610
Swedesboro: Well, we were discussing abortion and gay marriage - what am I supposed to do, debate the Islamic view? I'm an American engaged in conversation with a conservative Christian. But okay. Muslims are wrong on these issues also. Feel better? There's no personal risk in bashing Muslims OR Christians. We're on the internet, for crying out loud. I think you'll agree that defending the civil rights of Muslims is not the same as advocating or defending intolerant aspects of their religion. But this is going nowhere, because I feel like you're trying to portray me as a terrorist sympathizer. Idiot. p-diddy
Phrossty - I'll let your last post speak for itself. Completely ridiculous. Why don't those pesky gays be more polite while you deny their existence? p-diddy
But I would add that a politician (as opposed to an anonymous internet poster) is taking a risk in bashing conservative Christians, because they have a strong political voice. The Muslim constituency is much smaller in the U.S. I think Colin Powell was on the mark. p-diddy
I don't deny that gays exist. I'm not asking for manners. I'm asking for less hate. I believe the world would be a better place with less hate. I think that's reasonable, not "[c]ompletely ridiculous." Phrossty- p-diddy- I am saying that liberals pick on easy targets. There is an issue within the democratic party approving of gay marriage but instead the disgruntlement by some on the left is aimed at christian groups. I would say clean up your own house before you worry about others. For that matter your very own president elect doesn't agree with gay marriage. And p diddy, please refrain from calling me an idiot.
Phrossty: You ARE denying that gays exist. If you won't admit that homosexuality is rooted in actual sexual urges (as opposed to being choice), you are denying homosexuality as a sexual orientation. Essentially, you are saying "I think the gays, whose sexuality I believe is actually a fiction, should show people like me less hate." p-diddy
Swedesboro: Do you deny that the thrust of the opposition to gay marriage comes from Christians in this country? At the very least, it comes from a Christian morality, a minor distinction. And if the opposition is a "moral majority", I think that undercuts you're argument that I'm picking an easy target. But the "moral majority" is wrong on gay marriage. I have no doubt that gays will win the right to marry, and that opinion is changing rapidly on this issue. Gays can already marry in MA, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see gay marriage in NY and CA in the near future. Of course, Democrats have states like NY, MA and CA in hand, so they can afford to dismiss an issue like gay marriage when there are bigger issues facing us. But just so you know, I don't think John McCain cares whether or not gays can be legally married. p-diddy
p-diddy: you are attempting to put words in my mouth and logic in my head. Stop it. I have an opinion contrary to yours. There ARE people who ARE homosexual. Whether their sexual orientation is based on choice or genetics (or a mix of both) is up for debate. How else can the "bi-curious" condition be explained unless some level of choice were involved? Did you ever have the urge to steal but decide against acting upon it? Does simply having the urge to steal make you a thief? Stop drinking the Hater-ade. As for civility, is rioting an acceptable form of demonstration against racism? If not, then gay extremists need to tone down their rhetoric or they run the risk of becoming as marginalized as looters in the minds of rational people. Phrossty
So you admit that homosexuals have actual sexual urges, which you liken to the urge to steal. In other words, you're saying that homosexuals should repress their sexuality. Who's being intolerant again? p-diddy
Phrossty: It's not a matter of differing opinion so much as being straight with yourself - which you're not. p-diddy
By the way, a sexual orientation is not a "choice". Of course, a given sexual act may be attributed to experimentation, but not a sexual orientation. I'm not heterosexual by choice any more than someone is homosexual by choice. p-diddy
Our little "debate" comes down to whether homosexuality (sexual orientation as you put it) is a "choice" or not. While your postings are definitive, they aren't facts. They're expressions of your opinion. I would suggest you're not tolerant of an opposing point of view in general and on the topic of sexual orientation in particular. (Care to discuss the existence of a Supreme Creator of All Things now, or would that be you since you seem to know everything for a fact??) Phrossty
I'm poking holes in your argument. I don't see how this means I'm playing God. But I don't see how you can say homosexuality is a choice while also acknowledging it as an actual sexual orientation. By likening homosexuality to kleptomania, you are saying that homosexuality is a form of mental illness. If it is merely a deviation heterosexuality, you are in fact denying homosexuality as a sexual orientation, but as a natural mutation. But if homosexuality is a natural mutation, it's not a choice. Basically, you're saying that homosexuality is a mental illness. That's an arbitrary judgment (or in your view, one that comes from God). If you would just admit that this is where your judgment of homosexuality comes from, the debate would end. You think homosexuality is wrong because God told you it was. p-diddy
I have a couple of friends who are divorced mothers. They're lovers now. Were they gay all along and living in denial or did they find the options so distasteful and their personal history of heterosexuality so painful that they chose their new orientation? Also, you're doing it again. When you post "[y]ou think..." you're assuming a position of intellectual superiority and foisting your view on others. I accused you of playing God because I interpret your assertions of your opinion as fact to be egomaniacal at best and a god-complex at worst. Lastly, my analogy of stealing to sexuality was used as a support for the argument that having an urge to do something (steal, kill, be punctual, compliment) but not actually doing it doesn't make one that thing (a thief, a murderer, timely or kind and considerate). My point was that uges are not determinative. Choosing to act upon them is. My point was not that Homosexuals are mentally ill. Your interpretation of my point was. What's broadcast isn't what's necessarily received. It's OK with me if people choose to be gay. (It may not be OK with the judeo-christian supreme being, but that's up to Him not me.) I simply find it abnormal. (Both Darwin and the 3 major monotheistic beliefs agree with me. Homosexuality is an abomination in the 3 religions and it logically doesn't promote the 'survival of the fittest' since homosexuals cannot reproduce.) Equal rights under the law? Sure! Normal and declared so by religious institutions? I don't think so. Hence my stand that civil unions are fine, but marriage is between one man and one woman who are not closely related. Phrossty
I openly admit that mine is an opinion; but that doesn't mean that all opinions are equal or closed to debate. Sexual attraction to the same sex makes a person homosexual, even if that person doesn't act on it. By your logic, a person who represses his homosexuality his entire life is not a homosexual! So your analogy to stealing is bogus. An act of stealing is required for one to be a thief (I also take offense to you drawing a moral analogy between stealing and homosexuality). And your wrong about Darwin. Darwin thought that VARIATION strengthened species' long-term survival. I'm glad you draw a distinction between religion and secular law. I don't care about the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God's judgment; I don't recognize that god. I do recognize reason, and I think it's reasonable that gays be able to marry under U.S. law. p-diddy
Homosexuality must be one of those mutations destined to fail. Unless a homosexual commits an act "against their nature" and mates with a person of the opposite sex, they cannot reproduce. What is the advantage to the survival of the species gained by homosexuality therefore? If anything, the Darwin argument invites the slippery slope of "it's better for gays to live in the closet so they can breed and pass on the homosexual gene" logic. Thus rendering gay marriage pointless. They shouldn't marry each other, 'cuz then they'll die off without more mutants. {I'm being oblique and facetious.} I think it's too bad that you fail to recognize the source of reason. Logically, there are two choices. We're created. We're a cosmic accident. If we're a cosmic accident, then morality is rendered moot (as is offense to moral judgements). Phrossty
1. There are an unsustainable number of humans on the planet, considering the modern industrial lifestyle. The evolutionary role of homosexuals is to save heterosexuals from destroying our species. This is how homosexuals strengthen our species. 2. The idea that government should regulate sexuality based on utilitarian evolutionary grounds is absurd. 3. This is a grim view of sexuality. Sheesh, are you this "utilitarian" in bed? 4. I do recognize the source of reason. It's my toothbrush. p-diddy
Another point. If we are the result of a cosmic accident, this doesn't mean that we can't have a sense of right and wrong, as well as the ability to determine shades of gray. p-diddy
1. Therefore, our modern industrial lifestyle is destined to fail per Darwinism. Homosexuality cannot save the human race from its self-destruction from overconsumption. What's needed is a mass suicide a la lemmings or a change in human nature. 2. Government's role is to draw lines. In a democracy it does so based on the will of the people (hopefully). The idea of goverment regulating sexuality IS absurd regardless of the basis. Again civil unions ought to solve the equal treatment under the law problem, but somehow it doesn't. I've witnessed people who participate in an abnormal lifestyle demand government's stamp of "normal." Why bother? 3. Absolutely ... --SNIP-- "that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons." --SNIP-- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utilitarianism. 5. Don't floss away your cognitive reasoning ability. 6. (Another point) Um, no. Without a moral compass then it's all relative. Human sacrifice seemed like holiness to Aztecs, paedophilia a great way of life to devotees of Catholicism, rape ceases to exist - it's only sex on the Darwinian scale. Basically, man loses all his nobility if it's all random and purposeless. We become talking monkeys. Ironically, Saul of Tarsus uses the existence of conscience within man (the ability to sense right and wrong) as a bolster to the argument in favor of the Supreme Being's existence [Romans 2: 13-15] Phrossty
Yes, the modern industrial lifestyle is doomed to fail. The planet can't sustain it, and we need the planet to survive. We need to change. Why do you want mass suicide? That's disturbing. But homosexuality has always existed, it's not something that has merely coincided with modern industrialism. I don't believe homosexuality threatens our ability to reproduce as a species, for the simple reason that homosexuality does not preclude heterosexuality, even within individuals (bisexuality). So opposition to homosexuality on evolutionary grounds is silly. Our government already regulates sexuality - marriage among homosexuals is illegal. Your judgment of homosexuality as "abnormal" is arbitrary, or from "God". That sort of argument is closed to debate. This was the point of my toothbrush comment. I still don't understand how a god is necessary for us to know right and wrong, or how the lack of a god causes everything to be random. Allowing homosexuals to be married doesn't cause anyone to suffer. By the way, Catholicism condemns pedophilia. Why the jab at Catholics? After all, they worship your god too, I assume. p-diddy
Where do I begin (to tell the story of a...)?? 1) I don't want mass suicide. I was exaggerating a point about our probable doom. I am concerned that we're heading for a mass suicide, but it would be labeled 'nuclear holocaust' or some such. 2) Aren't all judgments arbitrary? Again, there's confusion about what I'm opposed to. It isn't homosexuality. I'm opposed to considering homosexuality normal. By Darwin it's a mutation. By Monotheism it's an abomination. Either way it's not normal. 3) You're correct about Catholicism's stand against paedophilia (in theory if not in practice). Also, they do worship the same deity as I. I was trying to be an equal opportunity slammer (Aztecs/Catholics) and might have missed the mark. 4) You make a good point allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't cause suffering (save perhaps the married couple). However, it alters the definition of marriage itself. 4a) The government regulates marriage, not sexuality. 5) A lack of God causes everything to be random by logical conclusion. If the universe wasn't created and it came about out of nothing, then the universe and all within it is totally accidental and, therefore, random. 6) One example of why we "need" God to know right from wrong is shown in the way this discussion evolved. You say it's OK for homosexuals to marry. I say it isn't OK. I'm not going to persuade you otherwise and you aren't going to persuade me. Are we both right? Or is there such a thing as absolute truth? At this point we should agree to disagree. Phrossty
1. You say homosexuality isn't "normal". Who defines "normal"? How is "normality" associated with morality? They are a minority, yes, but only a bigot would ascribe "normality" only to the majority. "Normal" is itself a judgment, and is a meaningless term for the purposes of this debate. 2. Again, you misunderstand the theory of evolution. Variation within a species strengthens it over time. The term "mutation" doesn't have pejorative connotations in Darwin. We introduce natural mutations into crops (for example, strawberries that are resistant to a certain disease) to increase their yield, for example. In any case, according to your logic, sterile heterosexuals would be immoral beings. 3. If two homosexuals want to marry, how are they harming themselves? I don't get it. 4. If the government defines "marriage" as being between a man and a woman, how can you plausibly argue that government doesn't regulate sexuality? You don't think sexuality and marriage are intertwined? Further proof that you must be a boring husband/wife. 5. I can accidentally get a woman pregnant, but that doesn't mean the baby won't have the power of will. I don't see why randomness and self will can't coexist. 6. Again, all opinions are not equal. We have the power of reason. We can evaluate arguments based on their merits. The difference between your argument and mine is that mine is based on reason. Yours is based on an appeal to an unassailable divine being. Yours is a closed "truth", mine is an opinion that is open to debate through reason. Why can't we eat cookies past bedtime? Because mommy said so. p-diddy
1) I did. I used science and religion to explain how. To reiterate, I hold the opinion that it's a choice as opposed to a congenital condition. 2) I probably do. I only have a high school level education familiarity with the theory. Your example is bogus, however. Once we introduce the mutation, then it isn't natural (or "normal"). I cannot follow your reasoning about sterility = immorality. 3) It's a joke about the condition of married people making one another's lives miserable. (Now I presume you're single or humorless or both.) 4) I merely stated the fact about what is being regulated, marriage, not sexuality. Yes, marriage is regulated BASED on sexuality, but that's still not regulating the sexuality. The government isn't saying you can't be gay. It's saying it doesn't recognize a marriage between two people of the same gender. For the record, I'm very boring. But I believe sex is the God-given gift of glue that binds a healthy marriage. 5) Uh, what?? I'm talking about the total picture. We have a purpose or we don't. Of course we have free will and we are merely specks on a dust mote that are driven by chance and circumstance. Does our (the universe's) very existence matter or not? If so, why? Because we came from nothing? I don't think so. Otherwise it's all meaningless. {BTW, how do you "accidentally" have sex with someone? The idea of an accidental pregnancy is misleading. Unplanned or against one's will? Yes. Accidental? Not unless you think sex is the end rather than a means to an end.} 6) All opinions are equal. The basis for the opinion may be faulty. You're suggesting the basis for my opinion is flawed. I suggest that despite your claim of openness, you're opinion is closed to the possibility that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist. You win as long as there is no God. What if there is a Supreme Creator of All Things who actually cares about the specks on this dust mote? Hmmm?? Time to quote FZ.... Phrossty
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds." Attributed to Frank Zappa. http://tinyurl.com/FZagree Phrossty
1. You think homosexuality is a choice. If it's a choice, and not a natural condition, then why would you bother arguing against homosexuality on evolutionary grounds? 2. In naturally occurring evolution, the process would merely take longer. For example, strawberries that are resistant to a certain disease increase in numbers over time, and evolve into a "stronger" variety of strawberry. How does any species evolve? By incorporating mutations into the genetic makeup. Your evolutionary argument uses the term "normal" as a pejorative term, but in terms of the ability to breed homosexuals are no different than people who are sterile. Your problem is that you are making moral judgments ("normal"), but there are no moral judgments in Darwin. 3. Only another bored married person would understand that joke. 4. You're merely stating the law, without exploring the law's reasoning. The point is that a moral judgment is being made on homosexuality by exclusion. And if this is not a moral judgment of homosexuality, then why is sexual preference the main legal criteria for marriage? I don't think even gay marriage opponents would argue that the law is not based on moral judgments of sexual preferences. 5. Ok. Let's assume there is a god. What is the purpose God prescribes for us? To worship God? Why worship God? To reach heaven and find contentment? Who wants to be content (sated)? The more I think of this god, the more it seems like extortion. You're a spiritual materialist. p-diddy
By the way, the idea that all opinions are equal is stupid. If humans aren't permitted the capacity to reason, we cannot know anything but received "truths". It thunders because Zeus is angry. p-diddy
I don't intend to change your mind. I intend to show that your opinion is irrational. You just won't admit it. p-diddy
1.) To show both sides of the argument. 2.) I think you meant "mutation" not "normal." Either way, I originally introduced my fledgling familiarity with Darwinism to support my "choice" viewpoint. I didn't directly inject morality into the argument. 3.) True dat. 4.) I suppose this is the basis for what I sense is your outrage. Enjoy. 5.) I subscribe to the following tenet as human beings' purpose: To glorify God and enjoy Him forever. My hope is FAR GREATER than mere contentment. It seems to me that you want to judge God's motives and actions to determine whether he/she/it is worthy of your recognition. That's backward in my view. You and me: specks on a dust mote. Creator: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent and (...possibly the scariest of all... wait for it...) HOLY! Who is in a position to judge whom? Humans judge God or God judges Humans? BTW, the idea that all opinions are equal isn't stupid. It's based on two premises. One is that all humans are created equal. The other is that opinions are like backsides. (Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.) I will absolutely grant that some opinions are formed on shaky ground, whether false premise, bigotry or faulty logic, etc. But opinions (like ours) aren't worth the paper they're printed on.... Your assessment of reason and perceived truths sounds Buddhist to me, not Greek pagan. Phrossty
Who are you intending to show that to? If my opinion is irrational, how can I be reasoned with? How would I recognize it as such? If I'm irrational, why would I admit it? I find your logic to be flawed. I will not admit your intellectual superiority either. Thanks for playing. Phrossty


