Reply #39: Very thoughtful, but I mostly disagree with you.

[Waiting For Everyman]

I don't revere the seeming "civic contribution" of name calling, i.e. labeling - be it "racist", "sexist", "homophobe", "bigot", or whatever. I can see that calling-out is fashionable, but that loses my respect for both the person and the argument instantly. It's arrogant. And I'm not interested in my political correctness being judged. I simply won't play. If my non-participation and non-interest is what some are trying to achieve, ok then. They have. I don't think that striving to be validated as a "friend of" this-group or that-one is a good use of my time.

I notice that the same people who so freely label others as "bigots" over some issue or another are themselves religion-phobes and God-haters. So they are bigots too, and not so openminded and tolerant as they like to pretend. Being a member of a minority does not make a person free of bigotry.

I will support and vote for equal rights for any and all groups of citizens, whenever the chance arises. But I don't intend to actively work for gay rights, which some here say is "a must", to not be a homophone. Well then I'll be a homophone by that definition, and I'll lose no sleep over it. There is only so much time I have, and I'm more dedicated to economic issues which affect all people. But I will say that if black activists had taken this same approach to people, I don't think anything would've been achieved by now. It might be a thought to study the tactics and methods of those who have been successful at the same objective.

I won't address all the points but another one is, to advocate something, a hypothetical solution is not a preposterous thing to think about first.

Lastly, I understand the anger over Warren. I can't stand the guy either, or the Religious Right, and I wish someone more worthy and less offensive were speaking at the inaugural instead of him. He would not have been my choice. I would've had no invocation at all rather than him or anyone like him. Unless Obama has something strategic in mind in choosing him, it's extreme bad taste. I understand. But he is not important. I can only say that if I were gay, I would be angered and hurt by that but I would be more focused on what I could do to achieve the rights I seek. Granted, no chance to change that would come this week, or soon, but it would take planning and work to get to that point, and that's what I'd be focusing on now - I'm just saying that's what I'm actually doing concerning the issues I'm actively involved with.

I understand the hurt. I totally understand that when hurt or angry or intensely dedicated to an issue, people can be blunt and offend people. I do it too. I understand that some are protective of those they know are hurt by this. I can identify with all the sides of this which I read here. But... I do think that some who are seen as critics are trying to help by stating something true about the manner of making the point, and tactics used. They are right. That isn't being heard very well right now, but it's nonetheless true. Straight people after all, are the votes to be won, to change this. So some of the points straight DUers are making might help in getting that support. The way I read it, that is what they are trying to say. And by now, most seem just frustrated with it.

Over and out. I don't have a "dog in this fight" so I won't annoy those who do any further with my opinion.