Not that anyone’s counting, but the cabinet as announced/projected at present includes three Latinos, two Asian Americans, one African-American, three women, and, yes, two Republicans.

Elmendorf observed that the top-tier White House staff doesn’t appear to have any LGBT people in it either. “That just makes the Rick Warren thing an extra kick in the stomach,” he said.

Though Elmendorf sympathized with Obama’s big-tent argument about wanting to reach out to evangelicals through Rick Warren, he added, “but I don’t think [the Obama team] has sent any signals to the gay and lesbian community — who voted for him overwhelmingly — that they want to include them.”

The inaugural committee is touting the participation of the Lesbian and Gay Band Association in the inaugural parade as a symbol of inclusion.

People experience pleasure solely on their own, whether there is someone else experiencing it or not…their pleasure is theirs alone.

You write of sex in terms/analogies of experiencing pleasure as a disconnected individual.

I write of it as one possible mode of interaction and communication between real beings.

From my standpoint, you are overly obsessed with individual self, individual desire and feelings of pleasure when it comes to sex.

From my standpoint, you are overly focused on your own and other individual's feelings and desires, and you speak a world in which people relate to sex with each other as being about individual desire and pleasure rather than communication and interaction.

You are one sick demented person all because of your sexual desires.

You are deeply obsessed with what you claim and imagine are “my” sexual desires.

Again, pretending it's about the gender of who I am with serves as cover for and diversion from the distorted twisted way you perceive and write about sex.

All you wish to do as I said previously is demean me.

I think that what actually demeans you is the sickness you carry about what sex is and your choice to hide it under this other topic. I think that would demean you whether I (or anyone else) pointed it out or not.

There is to LGBTQ community “as a whole” just like there's no Black community “as a whole” and some of us belong to both, even as BOTH embarrass us deeply at times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-hirshman/we...

All you wish to do as I said previously is demean me.

You are one sick demented person all because of your sexual desires.

Unbelievable.

I will respond if you chose to not agree to disagree..don't think you will silence me.

And the operative word in what I stated was not access it was pleasure..which is not an object but a feeling.

People experience pleasure solely on their own, whether there is someone else experiencing it or not…their pleasure is theirs alone.

Geez.

The line can only be drawn IF everyone is silent. It can't just be because I hold a minority view on the site that I am the one who needs to be silent. Doesn't work that way.

You called yourself out heartsandflowers when you chose to focus on me vs. the subject under discussion.

But you know, wrb: You are lying and I will not let your lies go by without comment.

You just wrote: Nor did I write about sex in terms of access to drugs, alcohol or ice cream.

You may have some way to get around this with fancy words, wrb, but you are lying. Here are your very own words from last month's thread (thread linked in my reply to Jon, above):

wrb writes: Your first sexual encounter is no different from the first time you are offered drugs or liquor. You get to decide to engage in that conduct no matter what the gender of the individual is. The probability of that chance being equal is not the issue, the probability of what you choose to do is the issue. Everyone decides with equal chance whether to imbibe, inhale or fornicate. Conduct is always a choice.

Source: where you posted this

wrb writes: It could have been your first taste of ice cream or your first slice of apple pie. The point was simply that when you try it you like it. It is PLEASURABLE not that as you choose to misconstrue it as some 'addictive/compulsive' behavior.

Source: where you posted this

You wrote those words. You did.

You are LYING now, just lying. Fancy words don't change what you wrote. My inability to correctly get just the exact right words to name the sickness you are promoting doesn't change the actual view of sex that you are actually promoting.

Further — you willfully do not understand what I mean by object.

Disconnected individuals believe that they are the center of the universe and that all around them are not other beings they have to interact with, but objects for them to use to fulfill their own desires.

That is why I see your view as being about objects. Treating other beings as things who exist in relation to your desires, not as real beings to interact with.

Look at your own words and scenarios. In your scenarios quoted above, there is one disconnected individual interacting with whatever is around her/him as if they are things, not beings.

So let me be clear, yet again. Whiterosebuddy, I find your view of sex sick and twisted There is NO OTHER PERSON in your analogies. There is the disconnected individual and things related to that disconnected individual's “pleasure” (to use your word). It is crystal clear who is and is not in the landscape and worldview you promote.

To my eyes, your perception of sex reveals a bleak sick situation in which disconnected individuals approach sex as if it is something related to their disconnected individual desires, rather than as a communication and interaction with another being who is not in your analogies but IS there in real life in every case where the person is not having sex with themselves.

I find your way of seeing and describing sex between two people to be deeply twisted and sick. I believe that anyone having sex from the worldview you promote is acting in ways that will be deeply harmful to the actual beings involved — harmful to their humanity and to their souls.

And, I do not believe that this is an individual sickness specific to you. As I wrote last month, I see it as part and parcel of the dominant culture in this country. I see it people who come from your belief system AND from capitalist advertisers making things of other beings and selling “sex” as if it is a mode of fulfilling the disconnected individual's desire.

You want this conversation to be about “homosexuality” because that is supposed to give you cover.

You have a unmerited (and itself deeply, deeply sick) dominant cultural force around of the discussion is about “homosexuality”, a force that that gives you an unearned false “high ground.”

But I see through that, wrb. I see how sick and twisted YOUR perspective on sex is. Such deep harm, such distortion, makes me recoil in disgust.

you wrote: Bottomline, let's agree to disagree.

No. Your actions in our discussions — your lies, your use of “this is about homosexuality” as a cover for what you are really promoting, and your actual promotion of a sick and distorted worldview — they offend me spiritually, wrb.

I will not “agree to disagree” with someone who desecrates truth as you do.

I am willing to “agree to disagree” only when I am dealing with someone who has accountability to the truth in a real and enacted way. Through interaction with you, I have assessed that you fail at that.

Like I said above: you do not seem to know who/what you are really talking to when you are talking to me. And I will say this: check your gut knowledge and attend carefully to what is around you.

Specifically, you'd better be really certain you are (and will continue to be) fully protected by the dominant culture that is animating you on these topics …. because without that protection, you will have to account for what you say and do whether you want to or not.

Without that protection, that accountability will not come from/through me — but I am telling you whether you choose to hear it or not … without that protection, it will come.

Nor did I write about sex in terms of access to drugs, alcohol or ice cream. RATHER, you misconstrued because of your belief system that CONDUCT ENGAGING in those ACTS was about access and termed the ACTS objects!! Again, that is on you and your distorted mental belief system. Must be hard trying to keep all those denials straight in order to continue the self-delusion necessary to simultaneously projecting it as 'other's' problems.

O, so you finally get it was about feeling huh? You finally made it to the essence of the point? Hahaha, it must be really something to have to go through life denying feelings to the extent that you have to totally deny what is stated in order for it to make sense in your chosen deviant belief system. First you deny, then you denouce, then you decry, and finally you realize …OH, that is not what was meant. All because you start out from a aberrant viewpoint., when it comes to sex being a behavior that you choose to engage in. You want to believe it is some inherent trait and it is not. It is a behavior.

Michelle, again, with regard to semantics…only you are calling, misconstruing and willfully distorting the statements made as being about OBJECTS vs. FEELINGS. nothing semantic about feelings vs. objects.

Only YOU, projected that nonsense.

and
You did so, as a basis for you to go into a tangent of pathological lies about what it meant in order to attempt justify the complete denounciation of your belief system with a reasoned cogent argument. You HAD NO rebuttal!!

In short you had no rational rebuttal to the reasoned argument presented …so you chose to characterize me as being warped mentally ..when it was you who was twisting and distorting the statements to mislead YOURSELF which you have mastered to support your deviant sexual conduct. It is not normal and you cannot make it normal by trying to say it is ME, who is deviant.

Which is why I chose to not engage you any longer. I understand the depth of denial that homosexuals typically have and their need to justify them by vilifying others who don't buy into their deviant belief system.

Nevertheless, I respect your right as an individual to delude yourself.
Even when your spirit is obviously so unhappy that you seek to exclude others while demanding your sexual conduct be included and accepted as normal.

It is not normal, accept it is deviant and live your life fully embracing the deviant sexual conduct.

Just don't insist that the world has to accept it as normal. We are willing to accept YOU. Not what you DO. We aren't willing to embrace your deviant sexual choices as normal. Nor are we willing to accept that your sexual desires have greater priorty than marriage and families. Prop* failed in the most populated BLUE state in the union!!!!!!!!

Michelle, you should not engage me on this topic anymore. You should scroll by my posts and you should allow others to engage as they choose. After all, isn't that the very core principle homosexuals want…to make their own choices about conduct…how about you apply that in other areas of your life?

Or are you unable to be as tolerant of others choices as you want them to be of yours?

Bottomline, let's agree to disagree.

I applied the concept of LOVING people. I am not proselytizing hate or condemnation of any human being. I am however, forcefully, righteously and vociferously denouncing and rejecting deviant sexual conduct as a premise for marriage or raising children. I do so as strongly as those who support it…and if your view is not hatred of me and my opinions then neither is mine hatred of any individual.

If you were able to comprehend what I said, you would understand that black people lose their children all the time due to irresponsiblity and self-hatred behaviors!!

Furthermore, you would also comprehend that being black is not the reason for self-hatred and irresponsiblity …i.e. it is not inherent on the basis of race, just as homosexuality is not inherrent.

Rather, INDIVIDUALS choose to CONDUCT themselves in ways that irresponsible and filled with self-hatred, delusions and narcissitic denials.

Those individuals, regardless of race and if they are perpetuating homosexuality do NOT have any business raising childfen…just like alcoholics, addicts, thieves, and murderers don't.

My disagreeing with people does not mean I am disrespectful. What you seem to think is that I have to be silent to be respectful and that is completely false. In fact, it is the reason I speak out. NO ONE gets to SILENCE anyone because they DISAGREE.

If you were fully embracing of the 'LOVING' concept you would understand that and respected me for voicing my opinion. Further, you would have admonished Michelle for trying to create a ganglike mentality with other posters to act exclusionary.

I did not advocate excluded Michelle she advocated exclusionary towards me…and it is you who bought into her hate under some auspice of 'respecting' her choice.

What hypocrisy on your part.

The Left did not get Obama into office (although they provided the lion’s share of the votes that went his way) because they don’t have enough to make up a majority in America. That means that those from the center and yes, even the right cast their ballots for the O-man. And that means that the left needs to understand that Obama is not THEIR President. He’s OUR President (by “our” I mean all Americans not just some political wing). Obama does not belong to the left or the right. Obama will be the President of all of the United States (even the parts that didn’t vote for him). I believe that he understands that and his invitation to Warren, is evidence of that awareness.

Also (and this may be tough for some of you to swallow), not every American shares the same views as those in the progressive quarters of American society (California’s Prop 8 should have driven that point home). Does that mean that they should go and find their own president because the current president elect doesn’t share all of their views? Seriously, who is going to represent “those people” (if not Obama) for the next four years? And if Obama will be the president of “those people”, why is it wrong for him to invite one of “those people” to HIS inauguration?!

Warren is to Dobson and Robertson what so-called “rational racists” like Philippe Rushton, Jared Taylor, and (yes, even) David Duke are to out-and-out Klansmen and neo-Nazis.