I think it's an important recognition on Obama's part that no one can take the gay community for granted any more. I'm not crazy about Warren, but I respect the message Obama's trying to send generally and I think adding Robinson sends an important message to Warren's supporters.

So we get a post on Bishop Gene Robinson but still no post on the Reverend Joseph Lowery. Lowery is a man with a rich history who happens to be a supporter of gay rights. Lowery will be giving the benediction at the inaugural.

I'm just wondering...I know it's historical and all what's up with all the religion in the inauguration ceremony? I think that in itself is a mistake, and is also not inclusive to all Americans, not to mention the fact that "separation of church and state" is always talked about, but never truly practiced. Seriously all Americans aren't religious, not to mention the people who are represented are that of Christian faith and not all religious Americans are Christian.

Considering that this religious ceremony doesn't impose on anyone's rights and isn't mandatory for anyone to take part in, does it really even impose on separation of church and state? I'm agnostic in the military so I have to listen to prayers all the time... but since I'm an adult, it doesn't bother me. No one is attacking me, no one is excluding me, I'm still a part of the team.

Now I guess he'll have to have some guy come on after the prayer and say "uh... God isn't real" to appease all the atheist bellyachers.

It's Obama's inauguration and as a Christian, he probably WANTS the prayers at his ceremony. I don't feel that he's excluding anyone, it just aligns with his personal beliefs.

I appreciate this gesture.

I'm gay and the choice of Warren didn't ruffle my feathers but the question is did he choose Robbinson in response to the upset over Warren or did he have Robinson in mind all along?

Obviously the choice of both now creates a balance but is it a balance for the sake a balance or is it a balance for the sake of quieting the cry's?

I'm not offended by religion and I don't feel that it's excluding me and I don't think the tone of my first statement is saying that. But lets be honest it's not all inclusive because it's only a certain religion that is being promoted and yes if it's about the swearing in of the leader of our country and religon is being included as a part of this well it isn't a seperation.

Let me go further and say that yes Obama is a Christian, but he's not just representing Christians in the office of president, and the fact that it seems like he is making an effort to be "balance" them he should probably make further effort to include multiple religious/non religious beliefs.

I think it's a good gesture and show of inclusivity, as well as showing recognition of the validity of opposing viewpoints within American Christianity.

I think it's a good gesture.

I think it's a knee-jerk reaction since he lost so much support in the gay community when he refused to say he supported gay Marriage.

Ha. One of my friends who was really upset about the Warren thing called me today and said, "Ok, you were right, I jumped the gun." Hee hee!

I think it is great that he giving a variety of people a chance to speak. After all, it really reflects the variety of the citizens in the country he is leading.

As far as the agnostic thing, which I consider myself to be...why would you want an agnostic to give a blessing at an event? That doesn't mean that the non-religious are excluded, they just aren't leading the...prayer section. I don't think every little subsection in our country needs a shout out for every occassion. I think that the people he has doing the spiritual sections reflect the idea that there is a bg spectrum of beliefs. And I do agree in the separation between church and state, however protocol requires the swearing in and "under God". That in itself kind of requires that spirituality is addressed. And we are a spiritual country, so why not?

The pastor he chooses means nothing. People shouldn't get upset about it.

I like that a gay pastor will be included, but I still really hate that he's including Rick Warren in it at all. I think him reaching across the aisle is a good thing, but choosing a republican is one thing, choosing a republican who compares gay marriage to pedophilia and incest is just stupid.

@genesisrocks: you might get upset about it too if Rick Warren had likened your marriage to pedophilia and incest.

I think obama recognizes that americans are all so different and he is trying to be inclusive, which is great, but you can't please everybody all the time.

"you can't please everybody all the time."

Amen pinky pink. I sure hope he doesn't spend all his time and energy doing so. Let them complain, that is their right to do so, but don't try to tow the line for everyone. And I mean that for red, blue, purple, and polka dot.

"@genesisrocks: you might get upset about it too if Rick Warren had likened your marriage to pedophilia and incest."

The defense I have heard from people who are convicted of those two crimes is "I was born that way." The excuse I hear from the gay community is "I was born that way." On that part, all three are alike. That is, there is no way to prove or disprove that stance.

Except in one situation you are hurting a child and in another you're having a relationship with a consenting adult.

Yes GS, it's exactly the same .

huh? What did I say?

I think Jessie meant Dave. And I second the

But the mindset is the same. "I was born this way" That's the argument as to how they are alike. Everyone who behaves that way (Gay, Incest) are born that way. It's an easy excuse, and impossible to prove otherwise.

Seek help.

Oh, I can feel the love in here today!

UnDave, you never cease to amaze me with your distaste for homosexuality and the constant likening of it to pedophilia...never!

As for the topic at hand, I think it's a great idea to have Bishop Robinson speak.

Ok, I'm not comparing the two, I'm saying that the same excuse is used as to why people choose to act on those impulses. Can you understand the difference?

Oh, I can understand the difference. But do you understand that your comparison of the idea of "acting" on impulse for homosexuals is faulty. Homosexual impulses and heterosexual impulses are exactly the same. The only difference is the attraction for one is for the opposite sex, the other is for the same sex. Did you not act on a heterosexual impulse when you initially pursued your now wife!?! Impulsive sexual actions made by a pedophile is for that of a child, which is by law and "morality" criminal.

Are you saying that homosexuality could be categorized as criminal or are you saying that homosexual impulses are directed towards children? If the latter, you do know that there are heterosexual pedophiles out there in the world, right?

Last time I checked, there wasn't a lot of "sympathy" going around for pedophiles, UD. Also, people who accept homosexuals as, you know, human beings don't feel the need to "sympathize" with them. They are our friends, family members, doctors, dentists, co-workers, etc., and they are not solely defined by their sexual preferences.

So we are back at the beginning of our conversation, where you are basically equating homosexuality to pedophilia. But honestly, who do you know that actually sympathizes with a pedophile?

And if by a "sympathizer" of homosexuality you mean someone that thinks the law of "love and marriage" should extend to consenting adults being given the decision to either marry or have irresponsible one-night-stands with whomever they so choose, then yes I am a "sympathizer". Although, as Em has said, there is no need for being a "sympathizer" when just treating a person as a person instead of defining them by something that for all intents and purpose is no one's business.

UD:

I'm glad that so far you are the only person voicing this type of view. I think my head would explode if there were even one more person saying things like

But the mindset is the same. "I was born this way" That's the argument as to how they are alike. Everyone who behaves that way (Gay, Incest) are born that way. It's an easy excuse, and impossible to prove otherwise.

So true what tia said:

Homosexual impulses and heterosexual impulses are exactly the same. The only difference is the attraction for one is for the opposite sex, the other is for the same sex.

I dont care what he does, i am not his "base" , let him pander to everyone he thinks matters, got to cover his "bases"

You're missing the point. I give up.

I don't care what your point was - I just don't appreciate your mindset.

That's too bad. I would've liked to actually discuss what I had questions about. But it seems you're too close minded to read and respond. Just read and react.

Honestly UnDave...after numerous anti-gay comments, there is no way that your stance or your offensive comments will ever change. There is someone on this particular thread that is extremely closed-minded, and it isn't amybdk!

Ok, that's fine. But at least answer me this: How does the gay community distance itself from every other form of sexual deviancy (I don't use that term to mean bad, just not what is considered the norm) who use that same excuse "It's an impulse." All things being equal (some do think Homosexuality is immoral, as well as pedophilia)?

Because homosexual relationships between consenting adults don't inherently involve abuse and harm, the way pedophilia, for instance, does? That would be my guess.

I hate the term "deviancy," by the way. You may claim you're using it simply in the dictionary way, but the strong negative connotations it places on anything considered outside the norm--which, of course, depends where you're sitting--just makes it a very loaded term.

We've all been around and around the "homosexuality vs. pedophilia" merry-go-round so many times that my head's spinning. Is there even any more to say?

Anyway, Dave, you tend to ask the same questions every time there's a homosexuality thread, and you get perfectly reasonable answers every time, yet continue to ask those questions and make those comparisons, so it's a little funny that you'd be calling someone else close-minded.

I've yet to get an answer that isn't "Because it's legal." That isn't an explanation, that's a duck of the question. Homosexuality at one point was illegal, so if we give it enough time, and show that not all pedo cases involve "abuse or harm", what's to say that pedo won't become legal in the future? That's where I'm going with this. How do we keep the things that should be illegal, illegal?

"How do we keep the things that should be illegal, illegal?"

By using the clear and obvious litmus test of "does it take place between consenting adults, or does it involve abuse, force, and harm, especially to minors?" for a start.

Fine UnDave in 2085 adults will be able to engage in "adult" situations with minors. Is that what you want to hear?

I guess my mind is completely closed according to you, because I just can't fathom how anyone much less a parent can't actually see a similarity between what happens between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS and what happens between AN ADULT and A CHILD, MINOR, ADOLESCENT, TODDLER.

"..so if we give it enough time, and show that not all pedo cases involve "abuse or harm", what's to say that pedo won't become legal in the future? "

That will never happen. Sexual activity with a child is ALWAYS abusive and ALWAYS harmful.

"How do we keep the things that should be illegal, illegal?"

By using the clear and obvious litmus test of "does it take place between consenting adults, or does it involve abuse, force, and harm, especially to minors?" for a start.

Amen to that.

It's really just not that hard, is it?

I feel 100% confident in saying that our society will never believe sexual activity with a child is ok. It's really not that hard.

Blue and Jude, we have long passed the litmus test of logic on this thread. If a parent needs to hear that in 2085 America will throw childhood innocence to the wind and kowtow to pedophiles, then that is what they want to hear.

"I've yet to get an answer that isn't "Because it's legal." That isn't an explanation, that's a duck of the question."

Dave, every time this topic comes up you make offensive comments comparing being gay to being a pedophile. And every time you claim no one has pointed out how they are different. And every time someone points out that the huge and glaring difference is that gay sex is between two consenting adults where no one is harmed. And every time you seem to ignore or fail to comprehend this basic logic.

How about you explain to me how giving blow jobs are different from being a pedophile? Cause hey, I was just born loving to give blow jobs. It's just my natural impulse. If you fail to give me an answer I find satisfactory I guess we'll have to outlaw them.

" How about you explain to me how giving blow jobs are different from being a pedophile? Cause hey, I was just born loving to give blow jobs. It's just my natural impulse. If you fail to give me an answer I find satisfactory I guess we'll have to outlaw them."