Both sides isolating themselves from each other will accomplish nothing. (Warren)

[Infinite Hope]

Change comes from both sides beginning to associate with each other and creating a comfort with one another. As those who are homophobic begin to interact with homosexuals, tolerance, acceptance, and even support will drastically increase. This lesson can be easily identify in many past civil rights struggles.

[WillParkinson]

1. I refuse to interact with anyone who calls me a pederast...

Child molester. Incest lover.

For their to be any kind of understanding both sides need to be able to tone it down. Mr. Warren is not that person. And as long he is not I cannot be.

[Ajaye]

33. Didn't say that.

With all due respect, Warren did not say those things. He did not call gay people child molestors or incest lovers. What he said was bad enough. He said in his view gay marriage was tantamount to a young girl getting married to an old guy, brother and sister marrying or bigamy. Now, that's ridiculous, because obviously gay marriage is not exploitive in any way. So it's an ignorant thing to say, even if you believe that the bible says homosexuality is a sin.

But let's be accurate about what was said by whom. You cannot make logical arguments that make sense to people if you misquote your opponent.

We're not really going to change Rick Warren. But we are trying to sway people who are closer to the center, but not quite there. if Warren has a debate on Larry King with a leader from the gay community, and that leader says...You said gays are child molestors! then Warren gets to deny that and spend the time saying what he actually said and so forth and ultimately, the correct response, the response that will really put him on the spot will be missed.

And yes, it is obnoxious, ignorant, I mean dumbass ignorant to equate gay marriage with incest or an adult marrying a child. Bigamy...maybe we should revisit that one altogether and let people be free to do that, but that's another issue. But you have to point out why, even if it seems obvious and you resent even having to go there. We need to change hearts and minds, we need to outstrip the Warrens of the world with calm, steady, rational determination.

[WillParkinson]

39. Yes...

Comparing me to a pederast is much different than saying I am one.

[Captain Hilts]

2. So, LBJ should have invited someone from the KKK to the White House with MLK?

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. LBJ interacted with southern segregationist his entire life

I doubt he ever had a single important meeting with Congressional leaders that did not include some of them who were among his closest allies as he rose up the political ladder. He certainly would never had become Senate Majority Leader, Vice President or President with out them. He certainly would not have been able to push any of the civil rights legislation through without a political career that included these relationships.

[Infinite Hope]

14. Ah, how history teaches us these important lessons.

That is, if we're willing to take off our tinted glasses long enough to read what it has to offer us.

Thanks for your post.

[Captain Hilts]

15. LBJ would understand that the symbolism of having a KKK member at the signing would be WRONG.

It's about symbolism.

[stillcool]

26. How can you know that?

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Well, many southern politicians back then were Klan sympathizers and enablers

And LBJ invited a lot of southern politicians to the White House. No he probably didn't invite anybody who actually lynched people. But Warren also hasn't lynched anybody.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

LBJ himself was a racist.

He made notoriously racist comments about Dr. King, for example.

[jonnyblitz]

3. i wasn't aware warren was planning to interact with homosexuals. nt

eom.

[Infinite Hope]

5. Homosexuals will gain nothing from isolating themselves.

That's an obvious fact. Understanding comes from dialogue and intermingling even if it's at arms length such as the inauguration.

[WillParkinson]

9. Oooh, how will we know who to intermingle with?

Oh, yes, they'll be the ones wearing the rubber gloves and face masks.

You cannot have a dialogue with someone who says you should not exist.

[QC]

25. He's going to watch the marching band. Isn't that enough for you people?

:sarcasm:

[Kitsune]

4. Warren isn't going to change. His entire con is based on hate.

No hate = no tax-free money for him.

[Infinite Hope]

7. Change doesn't come in the first generation. Look at the civil rights struggle of the 50's and 60's.

Interacting normally in society with each other leads to normalcy in terms of relations in a relatively short time. When the bigots begin feeling comfortable (second generation usually) with those they previously feared, then rights are gained. Bigots feel the way they do because it's fear of the unknown.

[IsItJustMe]

6. Everything in life is a two edge sword. This has a positive and a negative side to it. I guess

it comes down to a persons individual perspective. Regardless, you make an excellent point.

[Infinite Hope]

8. I'd agree. The problem is bigots feel the way they do because of "fear of the unknown." (continued)

Erasing that fear is essential.

[atreides1]

16. And How do you Erase the Fear?

Because there is still bigotry based on the color of a person's skin, gender, as well as sexual orientation.

So you see you can never erase the fear, because the fear is based on hatred, and as long as hatred is accepted as part of a culture or taught as religious doctrine, it can never be erased.

[EFerrari]

32. That's partially true. And Warren pays his rent by stoking that fear.

[chascarrillo]

10. Warren doesn't allow gays in the door at his church. He doesn't want interaction.

So, where does that leave us?

[Infinite Hope]

11. Neither side wants interaction. But it has to start somewhere with a small step from each side. n/t

[WillParkinson]

12. We step towards...

They step away. It's almost like a beautiful dance. Too bad the music isn't that great.

[chascarrillo]

29. So you think that scientists should reach out to young earth creationists to find common ground?

Does that make sense to you?

[Hippo_Tron]

35. That's an intellectual debate and not a political one

Maybe you should phrase the question "Do you think people that want evolution taught in schools should reach out to the people who want creationism taught in schools?"

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Dupe n/t

[Egnever]

17. Realy ? how does he know they are gay?

[Maven]

20. Well I guess he might not if they stay in the closet

Problem solved!

:eyes:

[kenny blankenship]

18. Their bottom line is that I should not exist. There is NOTHING to negotiate.

And they do use state power to discourage people like me from existing, whenever they can.
That was their bottom line in the past when they burned and hanged people as the legal punishment for being gay, and that will be their bottom line in the future long, looooong after I'm gone.

So do not fucking presume to lecture me on my need to move towards them. I VOTE DEMOCRAT TO GET A GODDAMN RESTRAINING ORDER PLACED ON THEIR AGGRESSION. You're doing nothing but convincing me that I should stop wasting my money on this party.



Infinite Delusion: Why doesn't the mouse try to see things from the cat's point of view?

[Maven]

23. Please post that cat and mouse analogy as its own thread.

Says it all perfectly.

[Maven]

19. You can't have dialogue with people who think you're subhuman.

This post is condescending and insulting to our intelligence.

[emilyg]

21. Don't you feel the same way about them?

[Maven]

22. No.

I don't run media campaigns to convince people they're degenerates and I don't lobby to take away their civil rights.

[RC]

24. There is something missing from "Reaching out" or "Interacting" from sides.

That is "Right and Wrong"
Fact: We are social creatures. We need to touch and be touched to remain emotionally healthy.
Fact: Our sexual orientation is pretty much hard wired at birth. Just because a few individuals can be "Cured" doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Just look at who is doing the curing, that should tell you something. Sexual orientation is not a disease to be cured. It is a preference that for most of us was determined at birth. Some people prefer the other gender, some the same gender and the rest don't care which gender.

How does it harm anyone that my preference is for women? No one seems to care except my mate and she seems to be happy I'm heterosexual. (She says she is happy, I asked.)

So you prefer a member of you own gender? So what is the difference if one is coupled up with a member of the same or opposite gender? Except in the case of my mate, it does not affect me one way or the other. Why should the genders of the couple in the privacy of a room matter to anyone else? Or several couples for that matter?

If racism is wrong and it is, then homophobia is wrong for the same reason.

[stillcool]

28. In a perfect world..

we would all live and let live. There would be no struggle for anyone to get their right to live their life. But that is not the world we live in. Minds are changed one by one by one. Even in a cult. If no one ever reached out to me, if no one ever interacted with me because of some preconceived misperception, I would have missed out on some great people in my life.

[Oak2004]

27. This is not a disagreement in the abstract:

Gays and lesbians want to be free to exist and live their lives. They have no interest whatsoever in telling Rev. Warren what he should think or how he should live.

Rev. Warren wants gays and lesbians to cease to exist and is prepared to use the force of the state to that end. Anything less is, in his eyes, opposed to God's will, and is non-negotiable.

Women want full equality. They don't care what Rev. Warren wants or does for himself.

Rev. Warren wants women to submit to men in all respects, even control of their bodies, and uses his millions of followers to further his goals of enshrining his beliefs into law. Anything less is, in his eyes, opposed to God's will, and is non-negotiable.

Where's the middle ground? What is it do you think that gays and lesbians and women should concede to Rev. Warren? Do you think he'd be satisfied if half of us ceased to exist and half of us accepted a position equivalent in every respect to slavery? What do you think we'll get back from someone who has made the non-negotiability of his agenda clear, in no uncertain words, for any concessions?

You're not reasoning. You're playing with language and popping out false equivalencies. Just because there are two sides does not mean the two positions are in any way equivalent, comparable, or a mirror image of each other.

There really are Christians who argue that the sun goes around a fixed earth located at the center of the universe. There are probably more of them, in fact, than there are working astronomers, and they're much better connected with the powerful Christian media networks than astronomers are with the mainstream media. Do you propose that astronomers should dialogue with them? Do you think it's bad that astronomers isolate themselves from Copernican-deniers? Do you think there's common ground?

And by the way, no, change does not happen in the wistful way you describe. Change happens when an oppressed group takes power, and the defeated oppressors adapt to their new role. It happens no other way.

[Ajaye]

30. Bigger Problems

I hate that Prop 8 passed and Amendment 2. I think fundamentalists have far too much influence over our political system. I believe firmly that gay people should be treated identically to straight people in the eyes of the law, which means the right to have an officially state sanctioned marriage. I think there is no rational argument against allowing gay people to marry. The more I learn about Rick Warren, the more I dislike him and hope that Obama won't be calling on him in class again. I wouldn't call Warren a homophobe, because I reserve that for people who harbor extreme hatred and intolerance for gay people. I don't know that about him. I don't really know what's in his heart. I know he has some very misguided ideas about gay people, that he doesn't want gay people in his church, and is against state sanctioned gay marriage. But I have seen some very sick gay bashing by fundies, and what he does is not along those lines. He's never said anything like "Kill the fags." I think he would be civil and cordial to gay people in dialog. I don't think he wants criminal penalties for homosexual activities. I don't think he's along the lines of Pat Robertson, blaming natural disasters on the gays for incurring God's wrath.

I also think Obama campaigned on being inclusive. He has a personal relationship with this man, and apparently sees him as a messenger of sorts to the evangelical community. Warren is very successful, and if he bends or turns even a little on this issue, it would bode well for gay rights. Obama's motives for inviting him to the inauguration are not to honor the man's views, but to honor the concept of inclusivity, tolerance, and reaching out to those who disagree with us. I believe to the very core of my being that Obama is not a bigot, and has been the most outspoken advocate of gay rights of any other president in US history. He has already been on record as opposing Warrens views on this, as well as on abortion rights and other things. This invitation is not meant to legitimaize those views. And he will have another clergyman there who reflects the progressive view.

So, given all that as a framework, I refuse to get sucked into the absolute fury flying around here. This is symbolic politics, and it is meaningless, in the long run.

This country is facing down a depression. We have had advocates of torture in power. Our standing in the world is shattered. Women's reproductive rights have been narrowed. I mean, on and on and on I could go.

I understand the bitterness and anger against Warren, especially in his role on Prop 8, and I think Obama could have been a lot more sensitive, but I don't view it as a betrayal. I just think it serves no purpose to lash into Obama like this. It's a lot of energy, and good will mispent. It is not constructive.

Warran is giving an invocation. A prayer. That is all. He is not being given a national platform to preach anything. He's already got it, with or without Obama. That's reality. It is inconceivable to me that this issue will be raised at all by Warren at the Inauguration, other than Obama himself, who will, once again, re iterate his commitment to the equal rights of the GLBT community.

If at the end of four or eight years, no progress at all has been made in the area of gay rights, then yes, by all means, fury is indicated. But Obama has promised to end DADT. He does not support the DOMA. He will appoint openly gay people in his administration. When he says he's against gay marriage, he is only stating what every single other plausibly electible politician has ever said in running for the Presidency. He left plenty of wiggle room there, by saying he's for civil unions. And it is not clear whether he meant marriage in a religious sense or a civil sense. He was branded as a terrorist for his associations. Was that fair? Now he's to be branded as a bigot, even though he has never once said one bigoted thing about gay people?

Only ten years ago, there was no such thing as gay marriage in any state in this country. Very few countries had gay marriage. The UK only just sanctioned gay marriage after years of inching toward it. Only 30 years ago the SCOTUS upheld sodomy laws as constitutional in Bowers v. Hardwick. Progress does not come overnight. This country, unfortunately, has not quite reached that critical mass of understanding about this issue, but we are moving in the direction. And I personally, do not believe letting Rick Warren say a prayer is going to stop that movement.

Yes, I believe that the equal protection clause of the constitution applies to gay people in the context of marriage. But, right now, the majority of people don't. The SCOTUS probably doesn't. State legislators don't. No president or serious contender for the presidency has ever come out for gay marriage. This is the closest we've come in history.

The fact that Warren is catching flack from the right shows me that there's something good here. That means that he is willing to stand up to them to support Obama on the issues they agree on. And if he influences other evangelicals to put aside the wedge issues and focus on the economy and poverty, then that is a good thing.

I also do not believe it is analagous to giving a platform to David Duke. That is a hyperbolic argument. Ultimately, what we are working for is for fundamentalists to adopt a live and let live attitude, and stop getting involved in pushing anti gay initiatives. Just like they stopped opposing the right of women to vote and work, the right of people to drink alcohol, and the right of interracial couples to marry. That doesn't mean individual churches allow drinking, but they're not imposing that on non believers. That's what we're working for, and some day we're going to get there. One step at a time. But it will take longer if we demonize them.

[EFerrari]

31. What a roaring hypocrite. He won't admit gays to his membership

but he spews this tripe.

[Hepburn]

37. Disagree.

I cannot find common ground with any person and/or group of people who have a viewpoint that denying civil rights to a section of our society based on sexual orientation is a good thing.

What the hell common ground could I possibly have with a group of self-righteous pigs like that? And...even more importantly...why in the hell would I as a liberal wish to move in their direction and/or accommodate them?

And...homophobes ARE not going magically interact with non-heterosexuals in a comfortable manner no manner who much or how long the two groups intermingle. A bigot is a bigot. Note: The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s did NOT eliminate bigotry. All it did was guarantee rights. No laws can MAKE someone or something acceptable to a group which hates the same. All the law can do is protect the rights of a minority which has been or can be supressed by a majority.

JMHO

[Infinite Hope]

40. The environment would be common ground.

Either you don't understand "common ground" or you don't believe in the teachings of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., the ideas of Obama.

[No Elephants]

38. Warren is just one more cynical marooon paretending that there is no way to

reach across the aisle, except by inviting a repugnant clergyman to give the invocation at the most historic inauguration in this country's history since Washington's.

Unfortunately, Biden, whom I love, did the same on This Week this morning and hundreds of posters here have been doing it. The intellectual dishonesty is starting to hurt my hair. Please! Someone make it stop.

The invitation was intended to be heavily symbolic and it is. However, it sent the wrong message. Maybe Obama and Biden (and, ugh, Warren) have no choice but to defend it. I am not in that bind. It was a mistake, plain and simple. When he made that decision, either the Emperor had no clothes or he is the first on Blackwell's posthumous worst-dressed list. A bad miscalculation.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Schools were intergrated and busing was enforced for a reason.

Did it work?

We have a Black President, don't we? :shrug: