|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 27, 2015 18:25:36 GMT
Guess I'm going to be the one descender on this, I think it was inappropriate. If the decision had gone the other way would you support the White House showing a display in favor of that? What would that look like? Every other day until yesterday I suppose. Shrug. Exactly. Do I have a problem with the rainbows lighting up American landmarks such as the White House yesterday? Nope. I don't have a problem with fireworks on the 4th of July, either. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 27, 2015 18:29:50 GMT
|
|
YooHoot
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,417 
|
Post by YooHoot on Jun 27, 2015 18:34:42 GMT
I think it's great! I honestly didn't think it would happen this soon!
|
|
|
|
Post by nurseypants on Jun 27, 2015 18:34:59 GMT
Guess I'm going to be the one descender on this, I think it was inappropriate. If the decision had gone the other way would you support the White House showing a display in favor of that? No. Because the President's position is pro-marriage equality. He lives there. |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Jun 27, 2015 18:38:24 GMT
This morning, I checked my FB feed and saw that my cousin's wife (tin foil hat far right) posted a comment on the Brietbart page. Pretty much knowing what it was going to be, I clicked on it anyway.
It seems people that oppose the SC decision yesterday are upset that the White House was lit up with the colors of the rainbow.
Now before you say too bad and tough shit...let me continue.
I read a thread last night about how "in your face" we have become as a nation and agreed with much of the discussion on that thread.
Obama commented after the decision...which I felt was absolutely appropriate.
But was it really necessary to light up the White House to celebrate? That White House represents all of us...the entire nation...even those that do not agree with the decision the SC made yesterday.
And even though I'm still thrilled with the decision yesterday, that action seems too bold, too in your face and should not have been done.
Now before you think I'm feeling sorry for those unhappy with this decision, let me say that I doubt those unhappy ever felt any remorse for all of the people in this nation that were not legally allowed to marry the person they loved. So fair is fair...hurt feelings are hurt feelings...tit for tat and all that.
The last numbers I heard in regards to support for same sex marriage was in the 60/40 range...with 60% being in favor. So the tables are turning...attitudes are changing for sure. Is it fast enough? No...but it's happening. I think as a nation we'd do much better to gain support by showing love and understanding and less by trying to beat it over someone else's head.
Which leads me to something else I thought of this morning.
Back in the early 2000's, I got to know the gay man that plays piano for our church choir. It was my relationship with him that really got me to where I am today in my comfort with homosexuals. A year or two later, I was part of a small Bible study group. Our group was together for a few years working on the "Disciple" Bible study series. I got to know him even better and as a bonus, got to know his partner. We'd go to their house, socialize, talk, laugh, joke, and of course work on our study. Those two men are some of the best people I knew...and their relationship was better in many ways than my own "God sanctioned" marriage.
My point in sharing this story is this...when I met them, I wasn't necessarily against same sex marriage...but I most certainly wasn't in favor of it. I was pretty apathetic. It didn't affect me...so frankly...I'd never given it much thought. But by seeing them...knowing them...and even knowing their relationship and being comfortable with them each as individuals and as a couple, they were able to show me, based on their example of their love, commitment and daily life that they were no different than I was. (but actually...they were both BETTER human beings than I was)
I've not been to church in a few years...so I've kind of lost touch with most people in the church. I'm reaching out to him today to tell him how happy I am for him and his partner and let them both know what a blessing they've both been to me. I am really glad I had them in my life. If they touched me in that way, I'm certain that their example of love and the way they've lived their lives is an example to many, many others. I agree. I don't know that it lighting up the WH was totally appropriate. And for what its worth, my brother & his partner have been waiting for decades so that they can be married and I totally support them. |
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,159
|
Post by lindas on Jun 27, 2015 19:40:10 GMT
Guess I'm going to be the one descender on this, I think it was inappropriate. If the decision had gone the other way would you support the White House showing a display in favor of that? C No. Because the President's position is pro-marriage equality. He lives there. I don't care what his position is, the White House is the people's house and he resides there at the pleasure of the people. He can do anything he wants to the home he owns. |
|
huskergal
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,002
|
Post by huskergal on Jun 27, 2015 19:57:36 GMT
This is issue is deeply personal to me. My oldest brother was gay and died of AIDS in 1990. I just think how different his life might have been if marriage had been an option. The pictures of the White House and Obama and Biden with their flags made me so happy.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 18:27:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2015 20:08:15 GMT
C No. Because the President's position is pro-marriage equality. He lives there. I don't care what his position is, the White House is the people's house and he resides there at the pleasure of the people. He can do anything he wants to the home he owns. Yes and even before the ruling yesterday 60% of the American People supported same sex marriage. Which is a majority. So as part of the majority I support what The President did to the people's house for one night. |
|
|
|
Post by Miss Ang on Jun 27, 2015 20:10:49 GMT
I agree with every single word you said @gajenny .  |
|
|
|
Post by moveablefeast on Jun 27, 2015 20:38:48 GMT
C No. Because the President's position is pro-marriage equality. He lives there. I don't care what his position is, the White House is the people's house and he resides there at the pleasure of the people. He can do anything he wants to the home he owns. I am the people too. I am also part of the LGBT community. I am an American and a voter and a taxpayer. It doesn't take anything away from anybody else if for one moment in time, the people's house speaks for me too. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 18:27:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2015 20:42:34 GMT
C No. Because the President's position is pro-marriage equality. He lives there. I don't care what his position is, the White House is the people's house and he resides there at the pleasure of the people. He can do anything he wants to the home he owns. I am the people and he is the people. Equality won and everyone has the same right. Do you feel the same about the Easter egg roll, the national prayer breakfast, decorating for Christmas or other holidays recognized? Those aren't all the people either. |
|
|
|
Post by foolana on Jun 27, 2015 20:54:29 GMT
Guess I'm going to be the one descender on this, I think it was inappropriate. If the decision had gone the other way would you support the White House showing a display in favor of that? I agree. But then DBO is all about 'in your face' to those who oppose him. He does it on a regular basis. and he's ok with attacking the SC if he doesn't like their ruling. And you, DBSP, have no problem being in our faces when you disagree with us, which is almost always |
|
|
|
Post by foolana on Jun 27, 2015 20:56:59 GMT
I agree. But then DBO is all about 'in your face' to those who oppose him. He does it on a regular basis. and he's ok with attacking the SC if he doesn't like their ruling. Huh? What is DBO? I guess you are referring to the President of the United States... can you provide a source documenting his attack of the Supreme Court? She thinks she's being clever referring to the president as "douche bag Obama." That's why I now refer to her as DBSP. I'll stop calling her that when she stops calling Obama that. It's only fair. |
|
|
|
Post by nurseypants on Jun 27, 2015 21:26:48 GMT
C No. Because the President's position is pro-marriage equality. He lives there. I don't care what his position is, the White House is the people's house and he resides there at the pleasure of the people. He can do anything he wants to the home he owns. He does reside there at the pleasure of the people. Twice now, in case you forgot. |
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Jun 28, 2015 0:39:47 GMT
C No. Because the President's position is pro-marriage equality. He lives there. I don't care what his position is, the White House is the people's house and he resides there at the pleasure of the people. He can do anything he wants to the home he owns. I'm a non-Christian American citizen and it doesn't bother me that the White House has an Easter celebration and a Christmas tree ceremony. It doesn't even bother me that the President, as The President of the United States (not as a private citizen), recently sang Amazing Grace in public. (And, IMO, he rocked it.) if we're going to say that "the people's house" must always, 100% of the time, forever and ever, represent the likes/dislikes/beliefs every individual American citizen, then... Well, good luck with that. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 18:27:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 4:29:49 GMT
I don't care what his position is, the White House is the people's house and he resides there at the pleasure of the people. He can do anything he wants to the home he owns. It doesn't even bother me that the President, as The President of the United States (not as a private citizen), recently sang Amazing Grace in public. (And, IMO, he rocked it.) if we're going to say that "the people's house" must always, 100% of the time, forever and ever, represent the likes/dislikes/beliefs every individual American citizen, then... Well, good luck with that. I thought that was such a good point until I realized the difference in your comparison is that nobody sees Easter and Christmas as a sin. |
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Jun 28, 2015 5:54:37 GMT
I'm a non-Christian American citizen and it doesn't bother me that the White House has an Easter celebration and a Christmas tree ceremony. It doesn't even bother me that the President, as The President of the United States (not as a private citizen), recently sang Amazing Grace in public. (And, IMO, he rocked it.) if we're going to say that "the people's house" must always, 100% of the time, forever and ever, represent the likes/dislikes/beliefs every individual American citizen, then... Well, good luck with that. I thought that was such a good point until I realized the difference in your comparison is that nobody sees Easter and Christmas as a sin. I wasn't addressing the sin vs not a sin issue. I was commenting on the belief that actions of/at the White House should represent every single individual American citizen. Clearly, Christian celebrations such as Easter parties and Christmas tree lightings do not represent each and every one of us. ETA I'm not a theological scholar, but I think that some religions do believe that celebrating a god that's not their god is a sin. |
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jun 28, 2015 6:01:44 GMT
I'm a non-Christian American citizen and it doesn't bother me that the White House has an Easter celebration and a Christmas tree ceremony. It doesn't even bother me that the President, as The President of the United States (not as a private citizen), recently sang Amazing Grace in public. (And, IMO, he rocked it.) if we're going to say that "the people's house" must always, 100% of the time, forever and ever, represent the likes/dislikes/beliefs every individual American citizen, then... Well, good luck with that. I thought that was such a good point until I realized the difference in your comparison is that nobody sees Easter and Christmas as a sin. To me, the difference doesn't matter. First, sin is a just a religious construct - a code based on a specific religious text. Why should the executive branch not celebrate a victory because a portion of the population feels it is a violation of their religious code? ...or because maybe TheOtherMeg DID have a personal moral objection to the Christmas tree? ...or because Jehovah's Witnesses believe it's morally wrong to celebrate almost anything, including the Fourth of July? Personally, I believe none of these codes should prevent the executive from celebrating decisions that both support his political ideology and signify a victory for many citizens. Consensus will never occur...but this forum is the only place in my life that people believe that if everybody doesn't agree with the president, he should defer to the disagreement and refrain from comment/reaction. Speaking of invented constructs: to me, this is a new expectation of presidential administrations that never existed in the past.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 18:27:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 6:04:09 GMT
I thought that was such a good point until I realized the difference in your comparison is that nobody sees Easter and Christmas as a sin. I wasn't addressing the sin vs not a sin issue. I was commenting on the belief that actions of/at the White House should represent very single individual American citizen. Clearly, Christian celebrations such as Easter parties and Christmas tree lightings do not represent each and every one of us. ETA I'm not a theological scholar, but I think that some religions do believe that celebrating a god that's not their god is a sin. Gotcha'. I was thinking about the reasoning of people being offended at the White House supporting the decision yesterday vs. people being offend that the White House would celebrate Christmas and Easter. |
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jun 28, 2015 6:06:14 GMT
I thought that was such a good point until I realized the difference in your comparison is that nobody sees Easter and Christmas as a sin. To me, the difference doesn't matter. First, sin is a just a religious construct - a code based on a specific religious text. Why should the executive branch not celebrate a victory because a portion of the population feels it is a violation of their religious code? ...or because maybe TheOtherMeg DID have a personal moral objection to the Christmas tree? ...or because Jehovah's Witnesses believe it's wrong to celebrate almost anything, including the Fourth of July? Personally, I believe none of these codes should prevent the executive from celebrating decisions that both support his political ideology and signify a victory for many citizens. Consensus will never occur...but this forum is the only place in my life that people believe that if everybody doesn't agree with the president, he should defer to the disagreement and refrain from comment/reaction. Speaking of invented constructs: to me, this is a new expectation of presidential administrations that never existed in the past.
(Continued) I don't know why this part of my post refuses to show up: I just arrived home from a wedding where there were two grooms - one black and one white. In my lifetime, both those things were illegal and both were called sins. I am not surprised that a portion of my fellow citizens believe this marriage is a sin and should be illegal. I AM surprised that a growing number of people think the very existence of these feelings should act as a presidential gag order. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 18:27:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 6:08:13 GMT
I thought that was such a good point until I realized the difference in your comparison is that nobody sees Easter and Christmas as a sin. Personally, I believe none of these codes should prevent the executive from celebrating decisions that both support his political ideology and signify a victory for many citizens.
Same here. I was only commenting on the comparison. |
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jun 28, 2015 6:15:24 GMT
Personally, I believe none of these codes should prevent the executive from celebrating decisions that both support his political ideology and signify a victory for many citizens.
Same here. I was only commenting on the comparison. But that's my point: the Christian concept of sin should not be paid any more heed than an atheist's moral objection to public displays of religion...or a Jehovah's Witnesses's objection to singing happy birthday to the president. So it CAN be viewed as an apt comparison by those who don't believe the construct of sin is qualitatively different (or more valid) than other objections. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 18:27:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 6:20:57 GMT
Same here. I was only commenting on the comparison. But that's my point: the Christian concept of sin should not be paid any more heed than an atheist's moral objection to public displays of religion...or a Jehovah's Witnesses's objection to singing happy birthday to the president. So it CAN be viewed as an apt comparison by those who don't believe the construct of sin is qualitatively different (or more valid) than other objections. Well there ya' go. Learned something new again. I wasn't thinking of it from that perspective because I didn't know that about Jehovah's witnesses. |
|
AllieC
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,057
|
Post by AllieC on Jun 28, 2015 6:27:53 GMT
It absolutely, positively annoys me too - but only because it is happening in your country and not in mine!  I know I've gone on about this before, but seriously Australia should have been one of the first to sanction same sex marriage. We had an unmarried, childless, female Prime Minister who did F all about this. Our current PM has a lesbian sister, and he's still not budging. The Australian public is so ready for this and our main politicians are living in the ice age. Anyone want to trade ALL of our previous Prime Ministers for your one Obama? And yes, I'll be up and cheering when our parliament house is FINALLY covered in rainbow lights. Absolutely and totally agree! |
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jun 28, 2015 12:19:42 GMT
Well there ya' go. Learned something new again. I wasn't thinking of it from that perspective because I didn't know that about Jehovah's witnesses. Yes, JWs would even object to your Happy Birthday threads...and our RefuPea anniversary thread. And some Hindus consider it a [their word for kinda-sin] to kill an animal, even for food, so I wonder what they would think of the White House "theatre" of pardoning a turkey every year. (Also left unknown is whether they would take offense at the presidents' daughters' eye-rolling or skirt length at that executive pardon ceremony... ) |
|
|
|
Post by brina on Jun 28, 2015 12:26:48 GMT
To go to the overall question of are Americans more in your face now than in the past, I don't know. I do think more Americans are determined to take offense at what they feel is directed at them. Often the person celebrating is in no way thinking about anything except for their victory, but you can't convince the offended of that fact.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jun 28, 2015 12:40:19 GMT
To go to the overall question of are Americans more in your face now than in the past, I don't know. I do think more Americans are determined to take offense at what they feel is directed at them. Often the person celebrating is in no way thinking about anything except for their victory, but you can't convince the offended of that fact. There was a monstrous thread a few years ago because a Pea was convinced that the opening ceremony creators at the London Olympics chose to include a section honoring their national health care service purely as a rebuke to conservative Americans who object to government-sponsored health care systems. |
|
|
|
Post by myboysnme on Jun 28, 2015 12:47:23 GMT
It is so sad to me the number of facebook friends I have who call themselves Christian, but mostly the LDS and Catholic friends, posting "Pray for us" as though they now have to get married in a same sex relationship against their will. I am just blocking their posts right now because I hope their intolerance will soon move along to pinterest recipes and inspirational quotes memes.
I don't believe in Heaven and am really not sure about God, but I wish I knew there was one who was going to tell these idiots when they finally get there all the things they took a stand about that were not "God's will" at all, and that they would wonder for just awhile whether they were even going to make it into the pearly gates. I wish they would stand there and have all their righteousness confronted with a kind of "What were you thinking?" response from God. That would make their offensiveness more tolerable to me, knowing that they will eventually see the light, to turn a phrase.
Of course they probably think the same thing about me, with equal confidence that God is smiling on them in their intolerance.
As for the White House - light it up! Rainbows are beautiful and represent everyone, and rainbows are a gift to the world by the Creator, if you believe in that. Who doesn't love a rainbow? The very cool thing about a White House is that every color looks awesome with it!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 18:27:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 13:33:56 GMT
It is all kinds of wrong. It is taking a political stance and the facade of the White House should never be used in that way. Ever. Especially for a topic so divisive to the entire country. IMO it should never be anything other than white. Period. Not pink, not green, not even red white and blue.
But what I find most nauseating is that the occupant of that house was anti-Gay marriage just three short years ago. The current democrat candidate Hillary was vehemently anti-gay marriage just a few short years ago, and championed DOMA with her husband. Yet they are both acting like they have been marching in the pride parades and carrying the dildo flags for decades. And the morons who adore them don't even blink an eye. I guess liars in the White House is a-okay now.
|
|
|
|
Post by pb on Jun 28, 2015 13:46:20 GMT
I know many people who have changed their mind about gay marriage in the past few years and most of them were very happy with the decision to the point of having a rainbow avatar. Are they liars as well?
|
|
