Why should gays have a say in the President's choice?

President-elect Barack Obama has selected the Rev. Sharon E. Watkins to deliver the sermon at the national prayer service that is held the day after the inauguration.

The choice of Ms. Watkins was not an attempt to mollify critics of Mr. Obama’s decision to have the Rev. Rick Warren give the invocation at the inauguration. The choice of Mr. Warren, a prominent evangelical pastor from California who opposes same-sex marriage, caused an uproar among some of Mr. Obama’s supporters.

Obama is already making changes, I see.

How can anyone that has sexual preferences change a President's choice of whom he wants to give the national prayer?

I think I'll round up thousands that enjoy bj's, sex with animals, etc. and demand he put Rev. Warren back in just for the heck of it and see what the outcome would be. This is most ludicrous & sickening thing I have ever seen. Why should anyone with sexual preferences have any say in anything?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/us/politics/11minister.html

2009-01-16T20:53:48Z

Lawrence you're wrong, read the article again. He changed when some of his voters didn't want Warren to give the speech. All that I read beforehand was that the gays were having a fit about it.

2009-01-16T21:00:24Z

I don't hate gays, but just like any other sexual preference I think it should be kept in their own homes. Would you like to hear someone going around saying they mate with animals, or children, or bj's, all the time. Sex is something that should be private between two people and not broadcast all over the place. It's discusting to hear, not just about gays, but any of it.

What's the matter, don't any of you like my "Freedom of Speech"? You don't seem to mind theirs.

2009-01-16T21:18:22Z

Jenny...As I already stated...Sexual preferences, any type of sexual preference should not be kept private. Not everyone likes to hear about how a person prefers sex. I don't go around telling everyone my sexual preferences. The gays are about the only ones that disgustingly talk about it and expect special rights, which I think is ridiculous. Got that? IT'S A SEXUAL PREFERENCE!!! It has nothing to do with religion. I could care less what anyone does sexually behind closed doors.

2009-01-16T21:22:50Z

Correction: *Should be kept private*

2009-01-16T21:40:26Z

Lawrence...If you had been keeping up with the news, Obama picked Warren first. They gay community had a fit about it, because he was against gay marriage, so he picked Sharon Watkins. Don't believe me? Here's one of the many news articles about it. http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/12/obama-picks-rick-warren-for-invocation.html

2009-01-16T23:25:25Z

For those of you that called me names and used foul language, what makes you think you're better than me? I didn't use any, nor did I call the gays bad names. I was merely stating my opinion without rude slurs in regards to "sexual preferences" and believe a person's "sexual preferences" should have no say in anything, but more than that it infuriated me that Obama can be manipulated so easily, so early in the game.

To answer the neocon remark...I am neither Dem or Rep and vote for whom I think has our nation's best interest at heart, whom I think will do the best job and has the least questionable background.

Most of you judged me and accused me of judging. That's like the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think? Who's the bigger bigot? I could have came up with some really good slurs and name calling, but I'm above that and won't go down to your level.

2009-01-17T01:30:32Z

Westhill...Thank you. I appreciate the clarification so much

Now, it's time to ask forgiveness and to apologize to everyone for causing such chaos, especially to the gays. It was not my intention to come across as a bigot, nor judge anyone. I was upset due to the fact that I thought Obama had been swayed so easily and thought if he could be minipulated that easily, he wouldn't be very good in "leading" our country on really important issues.

As far as gays being so vocal, I still believe any type of sexual preference should be a quiet, personal matter and not made public and still don't believe everyone needs to know our personal sexual life. I was raised that way and will always have strong feelings about it. We all have different opinions and lifestyles and that will never change, but I hope we can all reflect those opinions without such hatred and name calling as I have seen here.

Anonymous2009-01-17T00:13:13Z

Favorite Answer

Watkins' invitation has nothing to do with the controversy over Warren -- she was picked BEFORE the brouhaha over Warren occurred, according to the NYT article.

The Warren issue was reported in the news earlier because Warren, a nationally known, vocal opponent of gay rights, is controversial while Watkins, a relatively unknown, mainstream Protestant is not. Further, the inauguration ceremony is far more newsworthy than the prayer breakfast the next day. The Times is scaping the bottom for articles related to the inauguration because so much has already been written, so now they publish this virtual non story because they can tie it slightly to the issue over Rev. Warren.

Loyd/Mary P2009-01-16T20:56:31Z

Who are we to say who has a right to speak out in this country . If we ban gays , then who is next , blacks . whites , mexicans , Puerto Ricans , Germans French English ? I mean where do we shut up about a specific section of people and start concentrating on fixing all the problems that this nation has right now ? Obama may have been your choice for president , and he may not have been . The very bottom line is he can not do it alone and if we are fighting each other . Man I hate to go back to the 60's but what say we give Peace a chance ?

adcox2016-10-24T05:32:48Z

properly, i ought to care much less approximately who they are banging. fairly extremely, i did no longer care that Clinton replaced into getting BJ from an intern or maybe replaced into caught - yet i think of the mendacity whilst he had already been caught replaced into purely silly from a private component - I nevertheless did no longer think of it made him a undesirable president, purely an exceedingly embarassing husband. So do I care approximately sexuality - no. i want somebody who has plans for the monetary equipment that are no longer approximately enriching his rich business acquaintances and wellbeing care concepts that are nearer to nationalized healthcare and are not stupid hybrids to create extra earnings for his HMO acquaintances. i'm bored with "shall we pay Haliburton billions and verify lower back later to work out if we've been given something out of it" plans - i want plans that artwork and policies that verify on issues and oversight with the help of persons exterior the marketplace who're no longer snorting coke with the folk they are meant to be gazing over.

Yahoo sucks the big one2009-01-16T20:58:19Z

Are they not citizens? Are they not taxpayers?

And don't you have a sexual preference? Hell, doesn't everyone?

Ok...now you're wrong. Where in the article did it say anything about sex? Did it describe any sexual acts and only you have access to that part of the information?

Please, for the sake of everything, don't let your judgment of others that differ from you remove you from the facts.

Oh...and gays also have freedom of expression and can disagree with decisions...just like you can.

theHoundDawg2009-01-16T20:52:55Z

You're a ******* idiot. Why don't you go back to school and pick up in the second grade where you left off and learn to write English, then maybe you can construct a proper English sentence, and maybe even convey an actual thought, rather than an unintelligible rant.

Show more answers (18)