What do you guys think about Warren giving invocation at the inaguration?

[groundpounder]

Why would you want a rabid homophobe giving your invocation?

why not? I think the choice is inspired and only in America can we politicize invocations....:smiley24:

*head slap*


P.S. and anyway, AEF I thought you would be rubbing yourself with peanut butter, ramming a buttplug where the sun don't shine and be in a constant state of orgasmic bliss with every decision Obama made. :humm:


:dunno
*scratches head*

 

[Wookiegirl]

I seriously could care less.
Really
I mean isn't there some sort of separation between church and state?
Maybe I'm thick but why would it matter that there is an innvocation let alone who gives it?

I dunno
guess my vote is I don't really care.

 

[groundpounder]

say word, wooks

 

[Wookiegirl]

word

 

[groundpounder]

atta girl!

if it's that easy, I'll try this:

come over and kiss gp on his naughties

 

[Wookiegirl]

with tongue or without?

 

[groundpounder]

I can't even believe you would need to axe that querstion...

 

[Wookiegirl]

hey - you weren't clear with your order and I aim to please

 

[groundpounder]

I just figured your gut would tell you which way to go.

But hey, I don't mind ordering you around a little....

 

[Wookiegirl]

now you see where I'm going

 

[ssl]

It is late so I am gonna have to think about this one.

Might take a day or two as things will be occupying my time , but this makes no sense to me Bob.

Take as long as you need. I shall try to present my thought as an analogy:

The minority: homosexuals
The majority: heterosexuals
The right: marriage

The minority wants the right to marry. The majority has defined marriage as between heterosexual couples. This definition does not allow the minority to exercise their values, which is a right protected by the First Amendment, in addition to not interfering with the right of the heterosexuals to marry.

By defining marriage as heterosexual only, the majority holds the minority to their values, which is not always the case, such as this one. The majority enforces their beliefs on the majority, which is exactly the opposite: free speech is not just the ability to speak about anything publicly, but in reality, it is the freedom to express yourself as who you are, without fear.

Instead, marriage should be defined as an arrangement between two (or more, if you would like to allow that possibility) adults (each state would have the ability to define what age/other requirement qualifies a person being an adult) out of love for each member of the union. In this fashion, the definition of marriage is encompassing of all possibilities, without any issues arising from the minority or majority (although, as it is, the majority would raise hell, like they are, because it is an interruption of the "normal' way of doing things).

Hope this helps a little bit more.

 

[Accountable]

Is the right in question the right to define the word "marriage" or the right to the legal privileges afforded to legally married people? I ask because when it was offered to grant those privileges (hospital visitation, definition of next-of-kin, etc) under a different term, it was rejected by the most vocal of the minority.

A marriage ceremony can be performed by anyone for anyone - no civil license required.

So it would seem on the surface that the real goal is to force the gov't to give legal status to a wholly moral act -- to declare a homosexual union "moral." Isn't that outside the purview of government?

 

[SgtSpike]

Is the right in question the right to define the word "marriage" or the right to the legal privileges afforded to legally married people? I ask because when it was offered to grant those privileges (hospital visitation, definition of next-of-kin, etc) under a different term, it was rejected by the most vocal of the minority.

A marriage ceremony can be performed by anyone for anyone - no civil license required.

So it would seem on the surface that the real goal is to force the gov't to give legal status to a wholly moral act -- to declare a homosexual union "moral." Isn't that outside the purview of government?

I agree. I'm all for giving homosexual couples the same civil liberties as married couples, and they can perform whatever ceremonies they want to, but I think you are exactly right - they want justification for it to be moral, and they're looking to the government to give it to them.

Call it something other than marriage. Like garriage or something, I don't care.

 

[siasl]

Is the right in question the right to define the word "marriage" or the right to the legal privileges afforded to legally married people? I ask because when it was offered to grant those privileges (hospital visitation, definition of next-of-kin, etc) under a different term, it was rejected by the most vocal of the minority.

A marriage ceremony can be performed by anyone for anyone - no civil license required.

So it would seem on the surface that the real goal is to force the gov't to give legal status to a wholly moral act -- to declare a homosexual union "moral." Isn't that outside the purview of government?

you've presented the catch-22 quite nicely :thumbup

if it's true that gays want "marriage" to be a word they can use in their relationships, and want it legalized by the governement because of it's moral implications, as you suggest....then the exact same arguement can be made wrt to those who don't want it legalized.....

they don't want it legalized because of it's moral implications.

my conclusion, then, is that the moral arguement is being pushed from the other side...or -at the very least- it's unavoidable....but the moral crowd, just like your immoral crowd, want the government to intervene...to have it protect existing standards of "morality"

the question then becomes, by your own arguement....why should the government do that?

begging the question....is our government SUPPOSED to be on the side of christain morality?
how is that the separation of church and state, then?

obama chose warren because of this question, imo....to call warren a theologian is a stretch in my opinion, but his relgious views are shared by a considerable group in this country (to varying degrees, i need to be clear on that, so folks don't get all bristely on me :surrender)....the fact that obama is not afraid to accept that as real, nor willing to reject the guy's pov because of what i imagine are his personal feelings about it, IS exactly the breath of fresh air we've all been whining about for the last umpteen years....

change -whether it's good or bad- doesn't come from standing in opposite camps, throwing stones....it comes from the attempt to understand.....

 

[All Else Failed]

morals? Since when has this country ever been a great moral bastion in a sea of immorality? Are you even aware of our country's history?

 

[siasl]

morals? Since when has this country ever been a great moral bastion in a sea of immorality? Are you even aware of our country's history?

if you're addressing me, i'm reasonably aware of it....yeah
what's your point?

 

[All Else Failed]

I'm addressing the thread in general. Whenever people pull out the "moral" card, thinking America is some moral stronghold, that if homosexuals get married then somehow our society will degenerate into one huge brothel. Its the farthest thing from the truth.

It comes down to a large group in this country thinking homosexuality is "icky", and that is one of the major reasons why they oppose it, and its silly. Being gay or being straight is as important as preferring ruffled chips over non-ruffled.

 

[John Johnson]

I personally think he's a douche. But Barack Obama has his reasons.

 

[Hoffa]

I personally think he's a douche. But Barack Obama has his reasons.

:thumbup:thumbup:thumbup >f

 

[groundpounder]

It comes down to a large group in this country thinking homosexuality is "icky", and that is one of the major reasons why they oppose it, and its silly. Being gay or being straight is as important as preferring ruffled chips over non-ruffled.

I love it when you present generalized, trivial statements as fact.

Being gay or straight is a lot more important than chip selection, and nothing "comes down" to any one thing, such as a large group thinking homos are "icky." :cool