Obama chooses Rick Warren
 

Well, you will be seeing this on the news today. Obama chose Pastor Rick Warren to officiate swearing in the soon to be POTUS. Intersting choice I thought. Comically, I thought how funny it would be to have Jeremiah Wright perform this ceremony. The extreme right was concerned that he would use a Koran rather than a Bible upon which to place his hand. The Gay community especially here in CA has already erupted in flames over this choice. Guess you cannot please all the people all the time.

Truer words have never been spoken...

And what is rick warrens background that the gay and lesbian community are so angry?

He supported Californias proposition 8 (ban on gay marriages).

Well, I just do not see what the problem is. First of all the "Gay" community does not represent the majority of people here in America. Secondly, this is for the inauguration ceremony. Not like he is appointing the fellow to be a cabinet member. Thirdly, Obama professes to be a Christian and I guess he wanted a Christian to officiate the ceremony.

What? You mean Obama isn't a muslim!!!?



Just cuz he selected a guy against gay marriage doesn't mean Obama is...

Yeah, this whole thing is very silly. I could care less what this man's opinions and positions are. I disagree with him, but so does Obama. It's absurd this is the fodder of "news" talk shows right now. As if anyone should care. :doh::roll:

I am pretty sure BO publicly announced his faith. He is for traditional marriage, but I think he was against prop 8 which is why people are in a rage over this....

What the gay community is attempting to do is turn this in to a civil rights issue. Is it really a civil right issue? I think not.

What do you fellas think?

BO said he did not support gay marriage. I believe he stated this in one of the debates.

Is Obama's choice of this man a civil rights issue? No.

Is prop 8, or denying gay folks the right to marry a civil rights issue? Absolutely.

That's podium speak for: "Liberals. I know this upsets some of you, and I don't care". And frankly, I agree with him.

Definitely they are using it for their agenda. Gays do not marry or want to marry to have a family as nature dictates, they cannot unless they adopt. So it is just a slick way for them to manipulate the system and rape the tax payer for benefits. It will burden companies and the social security system further. The reality is that we are allowing sexual based behavior to hijack traditional family structures for money and benefits. What's next the beastiality freaks will have the same argument and the ACLU will no doubt support them as well.:nope:

Anybody that equated 2 HUMAN homosexuals wanting to be married with bestiality, (even while spelling bestiality incorrectly) has no place in the conversation. If you consider gay people less than human, then who are you to speak on human rights?

How? The civil right movement was for voter rights, equal opportunity in work, pay and abolishing segregation. This movement was for a race of peoples, not a decision to marry. I think they are far off the mark by labeling this a civil rights movement. What civil rights have they lost?

I think he was pointing out that if this 'odd' behavior as some see it gets the OK, then any other 'odd' behavior will be drawn in under the same premise. In other words, should the 'odd' behavior of the Man/Boy group be included now?