The anger in the GLBT community is a legitimate and righteous anger.
If you're a progressive and cannot recognize it as such, then you're going to have to learn how to, because unless there's some serious action taken on the part of our Democratic leadership, it will obtain, and possibly take form as a serious and highly organized national movement or organization. This movement is already becoming focused and it will be sustained by the support and empathy of progressives in the straight community as well, such as myself and the many straights on DU who know right from wrong and ethical behavior from political expediency.
I realize we're at an historic juncture in American poltics. Many feel as if their post-electoral orgasm afterglow has been TOTALLY HARSHED, MAN, by teh gays shouting about their civil rights. Some even see the anger in the GLBT community as an insult to Brack Obama himself, and characterize the situation as "freeper"ish. Maybe you don't understand the gravity of their situation right now, but I suggest that you gain that capacity quickly, because California's example has shown that the ability of the government to rescind civil rights for ANY minority group can be exercized without recourse to the consequences. And, to boot, an instigator of that process, Rick Warren, has just been given a highly visible spot on Obama's inaguration platform - a highly offensive symbolic gesture which only adds fuel to the anger gerated by his embrace of Donnie McClurkin and the abomination of Proposition 8. Obama's relative silence on this matter also shows a deep unconcern with the situation in the GLBT community. So let's not forget who's taking the REAL blows here: it's not you or Barack Obama, it's the 18,000 GLBT partnerships that have been dissolved in California, the millions of gay Americans who do not have a basic menu of civil rights that all straight Americans do...and it's also DU's substantial GLBT wing, which has been constantly been told to shut up and sit down in the face of the horror they are experiencing.
This is instutionalized and often covert homophobia, it is a problem, and it needs to be fixed before it becomes a crisis no one can ignore.
To all the non-GLBTers on DU: if you're offended or put out somehow by the "rage," the "outrage" that GLBT members exhibit on this site, you can either ignore it or support it. You can listen. Maybe you can even learn why they're saying such nasty things about such supposedly nice people. But trying to fight this anger or counteract it will only bring sharper anger, deeper sorrow, and deadlier rancor on both sides. Nothing pisses off an already justifiably angry person MORE than being told that their anger is illegitimate or excessive. So if you choose combat, do not be surpised to have your fire put out in a hurry.
Condescension doesn't work either; counselling "love" for the Rick Warrens of this world is not a solution. And most of all, saying "Of course I support gay rights, BUT..." is not real support. That "BUT" invalidates everything that came before it, and sounds to most GLBTers like a compromise, a half-measure, an insult.
yet that doesn't excuse some of the behavior that a handful of people have been engaging in. Fortunately, it is only a handful of people, and most people are channeling their emotions in a positive way. Solution-oriented.
Straights always say, sure I agree, BUT...or, in place of "BUT," they'll say "YET." Those are hedge words, qualifying words. They signal, to the receiver, a kind of support that isn't 100% genuine or solid.
26. No one is accusing you of anything, it's just that
sometimes unconscious messages are sent without the author's intent, embedded in word choice or the syntactical structure of the text. All I'm saying is that when you're hurting and pissed, when the wound's still fresh, and someone close to you says, "Hey, I understand what you're going through, BUT..." You don't want to hear what's on the other end of that fuckin' "but."
34. they're not. it's difficult to explain how i feel about it.
i think a lot of straight duer's are lacking in empathy, and are behaving stupidly because of it. i think most of it isn't mean-spirited, but it's a problem.
Nice, qualify the entire set. While we're at it, "Gays always ruin it for everyone else," "Transgenders always get discriminated against the most," "Blacks are always responsible for the higher crime rates." Oh, "Asians drive the worst, especially the women." No matter how true or untrue, you can guarantee to insult someone with absolute rhetoric. Good job!
Oh, and nothing is less conducive to active discussion than evoking a victim attitude while display condescension to the people you're reaching out to. What annoys me most about the whole for/against Pastor Warren thing is that I haven't seen anyone unequivocably support Warren. I haven't seen anyone who even thinks it was the best choice ... Everyone - every single person - has reservations because of the filth he spreads. I don't think I've seen anyone who has spoken against protesting through email or other reasonable means. The most I've seen "against" GLBT members is that they say you should be using such overblown hyperbole and take it so personally, as if Obama was siting there, wringing his hands in some secret base, going over a list of GLBT supporters and cackling with glee as he scans each one.
What a lot of the people, if not everyone is saying is that Warren is insulting, Warren is a bad choice, Warren is not someone we want representing us ... but it can have positive consequences if we can swallow a little crow and look toward the future. This is what I've said, myself. It leaves a bad taste, and has a bad initial result, but down the line it might be positive if we can stay supportive (providing that when Obama actually gets into office he sticks to his campaign platforms) and swallow a little bad medicine. No one is asking any GLBT person to walk up to Warren and kiss his ring or speak in his support. No one is asking that you don't offer protest and anger, at least no one that I've seen. What every "positive" person is asking is that you don't tear down the fragile structure that has been built because you need to take the anger of recent events out on someone - anyone.
Diplomacy is what will save us, not crossing our arms and refusing to talk. Unless that is all you've learned during the Bush years, is to emulate your enemies rather than resist their lure.
Remembering the wonderful speeches Barack gave, they now sound hollow to me. And that pisses me off. Should I have just believed that this was just another politician or was someone I could look up to and have hope? I just don't know. This selection has ruined it for me. I just don't have any hope. You may not feel this strong about it. And I hope you don't lose faith in him. I just don't have it to give to him anymore.
Well, gorsh, drowning guy, I was GONNA help you until you said "throw me a mother fucking rope". You've offended my delicate sensibilities, so now you're on your own, jerk.
70. Well, anyone who is against gay marriage is likely a bigot.
It's definitely a better tactic to lead them to discovery than to call them names though. For those who are militantly opposed to equal rights... fuck 'em.
I realize that everyone says that they agree with the end goal - they are not free to say otherwise and remain members of the community here - but I am no longer convinced that everyone on DU actually agrees with the end-goal.
Also, I have not seen this problem - that everyone who disagrees with gay marriage is being called 'bigots' and other names, and that this is some terrible thing that we need to focus our attention on.
I object to this attempt to shift the focus of the discussion. The right wingers do this with the issue of racism - no one can discuss racism without being accused of calling others racists, and than that supposedly horrible thing - "how dare you call me a racist?" - becomes the focus of the discussion. In this way, discussion about racism itself is suppressed.
180. I have seen people called bigots and bigot-supporters. The focus of discussion should be
how best to convince enough of the current majority to see gay marriage as a civil right.
Instead, we are stuck in a cycle of posting outrageous Warren comments, fueling the anger, and then people further build walls. And YES, many have called supporters of Warren bigots.
I simply am saying that you can continue to go down that path (refusing to talk to the other side, name call), or you can try a different approach.
Frankly, I think the only thing wrong with Obama's choice was the timing. Milk just came out, and Prop 8 just passed (not to mention the other ridiculous legislation/initiatives that were passed around the country).
I will grant that I don't believe Obama's motives are about helping the gay movement anymore than it is about any Democratic demographic. It is about keeping power by splitting the religious right. Who knows what the outcome will be, but I would bet that just enough of the evangelical bloc begins to take a different view of Obama, and this outreach will in turn help him pass legislation and may even help in 2012. It was a cynical political move.
I come at this from a different perspective, and yes I am straight. I don't pretend to know what it is like to be gay, but I do believe in equal rights. I think it is deplorable that not only has Prop 8 passed, but now there are lawsuits to NULLIFY existing marriages. That is nothing more than an act of vindictiveness and comes from ignorance. But I believe we can get to just enough of them (particularly the youth) to weaken the conservative evangelical movement and in turn gain more votes for equality.
Like it or not, Warren represents a step (however miniscule) in a different direction from the rest of the conservative evangelical community. I guess we'll see how Obama's choice works out...but I definitely see opportunity.
Is the goal really to convince enough of the current majority to see that merely saying that "gay marriage is a civil right" is sufficient, and to discourage them from doing any more thinking or listening about it?
Calling Rick Warren a bigot won't win him over. Nothing will. But pointing out his bigotry *before* he converts a shipload of liberals to his so-called "moderate" views may prevent catastrophe.
Absolute adherence to male domination INVARIABLY leads to abuse.
29. anger is a legitimate response and no matter who the majority, they have always tried to appease the
anger.
anger fuels change. when a minority says enough is enough, only then do things get done.
"Those who profess to favor freedom, yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
– Frederick Douglass, African-American abolitionist
85. No it's not. I think it helps to have someone gay in your life whom you actually LOVE.
Edited on Fri Dec-26-08 12:07 PM by RandomKoolzip
Otherwise, GLBTS are just "others," just cute funny harmless dancing people like Ellen Degeneres or that guy from the Rachel Zoe show. Sometimes, gay figures in the media are fairly one-dimensional, which shapes straight people's perception of who and what gay people do, say, want, and act. It abstracts them, sort of dehumanizes them. And when they don't act like cute little funny dancing people, and use harsh words and get pissed off, many straights have their paradigms disrupted, which leads to confusion and resentment. As in, "Hey, why aren't you acting withing the parameters the majority culture has set for you?"
96. I assume your "No, it's not" is in reply to my "it's not right" comment.
Some posters only read subject lines, so that's why I said that. Don't want anyone thinking we disagree.
The emotional bruising my sister and her partner must suffer from some of their own family members is appalling. Our family is completely accepting, but her partner's family is not. They still will not allow my sister at their "family" functions. These are the things straight people take for granted, but for many gays, they're a regular poke in the eye.
Our family has also "adopted" a gay man who is a long time friend of my sister, and my kids (who are grown) have always called him "Uncle Steve." Both he and his partner are always welcome at our family events. His parents are both dead, and he has no siblings or children.
It wasn't always that way, however. We had a big rift in my family 25 years ago because of it, and after several years of our boycotting family events that attempted to prohibit my gay sister from bringing her partner, the family saw the light and relented. You CAN teach old dogs new tricks, but you might have to whip their asses to make them learn the lesson.
Nothing gets accomplished until people of conscience take a stand and refuse to relent.
182. I'm seeing either a reverse-bash or a strawman here
in the way you state that the only way non-GLBT members of this community can truly empathize is to have a direct emotional connection to a GLBT individual, because if they don't they're likely to view the GLBT community as this:
"others," just cute funny harmless dancing people like Ellen Degeneres or that guy from the Rachel Zoe show
That's an effective way to get attaboys and back-pats from those who really might feel that way about straight members of this community, but it's hyperbolic and offends people who DO have the capacity for empathy AND also have the ability to be displeased with the Warren pick AND manage to still not hold the opinion that Obama is an untrustworthy swiftboater poseur who cares not a whit for the GLBT community.
It is possible to have congnitive multitasking at that level.
The OP, while decrying condescension, does the same to anyone who isn't squarely in the box drawn by the OP.
186. I'm not sure what your complaint actually is, but i'll just say that nowhere in that
post did i insist that the only way fro a straight person to have empathy with GLBTers is to have a GLBT close to them. My exact words were 'I think it helps..." This was not meant in any way to dismiss or disrespect any straight person who has arrived at empathy and support for GLBTers without the aid of a close relative or loved one who is GLBT....if that's your complaint.
My intention in describing those GLBT celebrities the way that i did was so that I could elucidate just how the media uses and abstracts the image of 'gayness" in a way that semi-dehumanizes GLBTers, makes them something "other." Which in turn creates a stereotype of a "gay person" that, while thankfully not completely negative (Ellen Degeneres IS a role model, even though she seems to be the "token" lesbian on mainstream, non-cable TV), is still fairly one-dimensional and has little to do with reality. Does that explain what I said any better?
Honestly, i've just re-read your post for the twelfth time, and i'm still trying to figure out exactly what it was i fucked up on. Can you be more specific so that i can address it?
197. My "complaint", which I'd like to think is a pretty civil disagreement,
is that I think the OP contains as many rancor-inducing "you're with us or you're against us" concepts as any other inflammatory post on the Warren issue. IMO, the media-aided characterization of gays by non-GLBT community members is a supporting point in your argument why this non-GLBT subdemographic doesn't seem to "get it".
That's ironic when the OP contains a warning that failure for this subdemo to "understand" rather than "combat" the anger felt by many over the Warren pick will yield a similar result.
A couple of thoughts:
1. I've yet to see any regular members do anything close to telling the GLBT community that their anger is not significant or doesn't matter or to "sit down and shut up", much less telling GLBT DUers that they're "harshing" on some post-election Obamagasm. Really?
I realize there have been about 3 gazillion threads created, so if there are examples, I'm curious. All those types of expression fly in the face of the basic belief principles of DU, do they not? I recall a few people getting TSed for responding to a poll, so I'd think if that sort of suppression was taking place, it'd be dealt with.
2. You have an opinion that Obama has demonstrated "unconcern" for the GLBT community and that he's practicing institutionalized homophobia. That's one opinion, and a number of people agree with you, but the mods have invited us ALL to express ourselves in a civil manner on different positions. I happen to disagree for the moment. None of us are clairvoyants with all-seeing crystal, so I'll see where the administration walks the walk on GLBT issues when it is empowered to do so.
3. I'm not going to say that you "fucked up" on anything; that's a dust-up waiting to happen when this is all supposed to be about an exchange of opinions, which are not subject to correction. One of the big problems I see is that, as several people have been flamed for trying to point out, there's no allowance for ANY gray area where I think some exists.
You're as entitled to express your thoughts I am to say that I'm not yet ready to tag Obama as an anti-GLBT apologist who's shaping up to be a failure before he puts his hand on the damned Lincoln bible; however, lectures directed toward any anonymous subgroup admonishing them to do this or that are going to fan the flames.
"Sometimes, gay figures in the media are fairly one-dimensional, which shapes straight people's perception of who and what gay people do, say, want, and act."
And then there's Logo...which would have you believe all gays are having an angst ridden relationship full of neuroses.
Everyone on TV is fairly one dimensional. The thing I wish they'd convey about gay life is that it's JUST LIKE STRAIGHT LIFE....except we have to put up with homophobic crap.
Which brings up back to Prop 8, Rick Warren, and so forth.
207. I have a brother who is gay and dying of aids
Edited on Fri Dec-26-08 08:54 PM by onefreespiritedchick
I do get it and understand the anger. However, there are so many posts on this one subject and nothing constructive, except a divide unfortunately happening on DU. Personally, I think everyone should be respectful regardless of one's viewpoint - straight or GLBT.
153. Exactly - demand it rather than complain about Rev. Warren
getting the invocation and condemning Obama for pickiing him.
MLK just kept demanding it as opposed to saying whites are bigots and that they didn't deserve to be part of the national consciousness because of it - he didn't even advocate exclusion of outright racists from society. He was too focused on the positive.
81. In order to actually "censor" someone, you need the weight of some sort
Edited on Fri Dec-26-08 12:00 PM by RandomKoolzip
of institutional power. Otherwise, what you're characterizing as "censorship" is individuals telling other individuals to shut up.
In other words, the government can censor someone or some group. A corporation can censor the words of a board member. A TV station can censor the naughty words the naughty bits of one of its actors. The administrators of a message board can delete the comments of members who break their rules.
A lesbian telling you to stop saying homophobic things is not censorship.
I personally think religion ought to be kept out of the mix altoether, which i realize is a pretty unpopular position. However, Obama COULD have chosen someone other than a fuckin' lightning rod to deliver this invocation, doncha think?
inclusion is the way to go as it increases our moral standing to criticize and provides a target for those with standing to take the intolerant fuck down. Lightning rods can werk to our favor too, doncha think?
103. That's not censorship, that's not inviting them to the party, don't conflate the two, its...
intellectually dishonest. Censorship implies that you are preventing someone from speaking out due to some law, Warren and his ilk can shout their hatred from every street corner in America, no one on this board is advocating that we remove this constitutional right from him. This isn't the same, not at all, to having a place at teh inauguration.
105. Denying voice of a generic religious expression by...
Edited on Fri Dec-26-08 01:47 PM by yowzayowzayowza
a representative of millions of Americans, however dead morally wrong on a variety of issues they be, would most certainly be perceived as censorship coming from a man repeatedly and publicly espousing a new type of politics of inclusion.
Edited on Fri Dec-26-08 02:18 PM by yowzayowzayowza
Denying any conservative voice in favor of all liberal religious representation would certainly be viewed as exclusionary, especially by a PE who espouses a new politics of inclusion. Any conservative religious voice is going to be antithetical to our values in some way, as was Billy Graham at Clintonz 1997 Inauguration. Not rocket science.
114. Oh for fuck's sake! Of course it would be exclusionary, that's the point...
but to use a word like censorship to describe my position is not only ludicrous and dishonest, but insulting, because it implies that I want to deny Warren civil rights. I don't, he advocated for the denial of the civil rights of GLBT people, don't diminish that by equating my position with his, it really isn't comparable at all, and is just fucking disgusting.
And yes, you are wanting to deny Warrenz, indeed by proxy millions of Americans, freedom of speech ... and not even immoral or intolerant speech but a generic freakin Christian prayer. Your cause is righteous; your tactics, pathetic and counterproductive.
130. "And yes, you are wanting to deny Warrenz, indeed by proxy millions of Americans, freedom of speech"
That's a straight up lie, and you know it. If you aren't even going to have an honest discussion. I frankly don't care anymore, oh, and what the fuck is up with the z at the end of Warren's name, that's not how its spelled you know.
272. How is not giving a public forum to a fucking bigot....
....denying his freedom of speech? Let him preach his fucking hatred from his pulpit or in the streets. He has no right to give that invocation and Obama is dead wrong to enable this bullshit.
Only tens of thousands. Warren isn't the f-n' Pope, you know, just leader of a largish cult in an extrememly conservative neighborhood.
I think Obama's making a mistake in elevating him to the position of Spiritual Leader in Chief. It's not must a 2-minute prayer, it's a statement of purpose for his administration, and
224. The most important consequence of doing the right thing is
having done the right thing.
We are a nation that has a whole lot of work to do repairing our image at home and abroad. Showing a little decency, integrity and compassion on Day 1 wouldn't hurt.
Edited on Sat Dec-27-08 02:52 PM by brazenlyliberal
There are plenty of religious voices - even religious Republican voices - who believe in and support human rights for all.
It didn't have to be Warren. And, in case you're saying what I think you might be saying, it most definitely did NOT have to include a bigot just because some Americans are bigots. Being inclusive does not require PE Obama to party with some representative of every nasty group out there. Should we worry about what would be the consequences of denying any KKK voice when you've campaigned on inclusion? What about the American Nazi Party? Because that's where this line of reasoning goes once you require that we honor someone who would deny millions of Americans the same rights he enjoys.
I don't care if there are 10 people or 10,000 or 10,000,000 represented by Warren's hatefulness - inclusion does not require including him.
246. Didn't have to be Warren, but any "religious Republican voices"...
are going to be antithetical to our values, ie anti- abortion, GLBT and women. Comparing such "religious Republican voices" to the KKK and the "American Nazi Party" is indeed a "ridiculous exaggeration." Had Obama denied "religious Republican voices" during the ceremony, his claims of inclusion would have been undermined before his term even began, over a coupla moments generic Christian prayer.
Edited on Sat Dec-27-08 03:20 PM by brazenlyliberal
Do you really believe ALL/ANY Republican religious voices are anti-gay/women/choice? And ALL/ANY Democrats are on the "good" side of all those issues? Or are you just saying that in a sad little effort to score points in an argument? If you really believe it, you need to learn more about both Republicans AND Democrats before you take a stand on either one. If it's just to score points, there's no value in continuing to discuss it with you.
And if you really think the objections to Warren's participation are merely objections to "a couple moments generic Christian prayer," you don't know enough about this debate to have an informed opinion, either. Plenty of information is posted right here on this site. Learn what people are actually upset about before you make silly and offensive pronouncements about their concerns.
31. reminds me of a quote i was reading from act-up this morning
"Those who profess to favor freedom, yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
– Frederick Douglass, African-American abolitionist
42. You may not believe this, but Larry Kramer's one of my heroes.
I remember seeing him on TV as a kid and thinking, "that's guy's awesome," then being moved to tears. There is something about people whose anger is truly righteous that attracts me - almost as if they were aglow.
50. i agree. will you help me brainstorm. i am trying to put together action plans
w. non-wealthy leaders. those who do have something to lose. i think eventually we need an act-up for marriage, else we will get shit done if we depend on hrc and other such people
33. No... "gays shouting about their civil rights" is not the problem
The problem is that some folks seem to think that the act of allowing Rick Warren to give a prayer is a stand-in for the whole, broad issue of civil rights for gays. It isn't.
And some people here resent the idea that their loyalty is questioned when they can't be totally enraged and outraged and convinced that allowing Rick Warren to give a prayer is something akin to the end of the world.
What IS it that you want from the rest of the DU community? Should we withdraw our support for the president-elect because of the "thought crime" he has now committed? If that is what you want, you will be disappointed.
Now you will say "Of course I support Obama, BUT..."
I suppose I also could say that THAT is "not real support." I could say that the "BUT" "invalidates everything that came before it, and sounds to most Democrats like a compromise, a half-measure, an insult."
However, unlike you, I am not going to act like a self-righteous ideologue.
I will grant you that Rick Warren is a toad. I think Obama made a bad call here. But I'm still really, really glad Obama was elected. I also think the GLBT community might be better off looking for ways to work with Obama and the Democrats in Congress to make a great deal of progress over the next 4 years. Tactically, I don't see the benefit that could accrue from attacking, vilifying -- and alienating -- those who could be your most powerful allies.
37. supporting a politician should have caveats. very different from civil rights
politicians are elected to represent us, when they dont, we should call them out. surely, you see the difference.
promoting rick warren at a time the gays JUST lost to him, legitimizes his position even further. its kickin a dog when he is down. thats a large part of the problem.
60. Proposition 8 passed, that means a lot of people are not supporting civil rights...
And the insistence of many that we should honor one of the key individuals responsible for its passage does show a lack of support for the community that was harmed by Proposition 8.
but even here at DU it clearly isn't true. There are always visible bigots here. It's just the LGBT community keeps seeing bigots and getting slapped down. "Those aren't bigots, those are fellow DUers and straight allies!"
There are a lot of people here who are apathetic about civil Rights. They aren't against Civil Rights. If we get Civil Rights someday they won't object. And so because they aren't against it, they consider themselves for it.
But I don't think a lot of people here are really for our civil rights. They're neutral. Their support is merely lip service.
Support for our struggle for civil rights should involve, at the very minumum, understanding that it's a struggle.
40. Or you could recognize and trace the flow of power...
Look, what I'm saying is, if a gay guy or gal is speaking in a tone you find unpleasantly harsh right now, then I'm sorry, but you'll have to get used it. People are reacting to an outrageous breach of their rights with an outrageous tone. All *I* am asking is that the rest of my straight brethren recognize its legitimacy and do what they can to help our GLBT friends UNEQUIVOCALLY.
46. What benefit could accrue from attacking, vilifying, alienating ....
Edited on Fri Dec-26-08 11:16 AM by downstairsparts
those who could be your most powerful allies?
Funny you'd say that, because that's exactly what gay people hear from the Reverend Doctor Warren: attacking, vilifying, and alienating us. We have received his message loud and clear. And he keeps on sending it. We keep on responding.
And we wonder what benefit his attacking, vilifying and alienating us could be not only to our most powerful allies, but to everybody.
59. People get uncomfortable when displays of power come from a direction they don't recognize.
Displays of power against the gay community are so common as to be unconscious. They are evidenced in millions of little, subtle, covert uses of language, in the homophobic subtext of much entertainment, in the culture in general (oh, and there's mucho sexism in there, too - but that's the subject of another thread). It's a unidirectional flow of power, typically, and America is used to it and comfortable with it. In fact, even the most progressive and enlightened among us don't even recognize their condescension as a display of power - for instance, when, by implication, they suggest that only straight people are capable of reason, logic, and patience when characterizing the anger of the gay community as "alienating" or "attacking."
It disrupts their comfort when the targets of oppression begin acting out, making use of their checked and newly unrestrained power, once triggered. Thus, the confusion and offense in DU's straight community. The "natural order of things," wherein straights control the discussion and gays are sidelined as amusing little chacraters who add color here and there, but nothing more, is thrown out of balance when those cute and amusing guys and gals on the sidelines begin talking back to them with a tone they never hear Sean Hayes use on "Will and Grace."
In time, I hope they begin to realize what's really going on here.
90. Sometimes when people get uncomfortable, they wake up
and throw off that stifling cultural conditioning about gays that is the real cause of their discomfort. So why wait?
Obama sent us a message and so we sent him one back: Thanks but no thanks. We may have gay marching bands marching in the inaugural, but we're not all marching in step with the program. And we are not just there to entertain the world. We have voices too, and so we use them. It's very simple. We signed onto this program to expand human rights to us. Not give platforms to insane liars who want to take them way.
191. that's exactly what's going on here.... then they spew the hey I dont see you gays organizing....
Edited on Fri Dec-26-08 07:44 PM by bettyellen
straight people want to be carried up on the shoulderss of the gays for paying any attention al all, and for advising them to shut up and play nice. they are HURT when their advice isn't taken w thanks... they are angry when they actuallly have their advice rejected. that's when they spew about how discussing the issue is a waste of time.. and gays aren't planning any actucusum wah wah wah...
You have taken the arguments of those who disagreed with you, flipped them backward and tossed them back at us, and then mnisrepresented the arguments of your opponents so you could make them easier to dismiss.
You say "the problem is that some folks seem to think that the act of allowing Rick Warren to give a prayer is a stand-in for the whole, broad issue of civil rights for gays. It isn't."
No one is making that argument, are they? It is but one battle, and you could say the same thing about every battle. Why is this issue not a legitimate one to discuss?
You say "and some people here resent the idea that their loyalty is questioned..."
It is the critics loyalty to Obama and the party that are being questioned. You have merely cleverly flipped the argument of your opponents and turned it against them.
You claim that your opponents are saying that ""allowing Rick Warren to give a prayer is something akin to the end of the world."
That is false and malicious.
You say "What IS it that you want from the rest of the DU community? Should we withdraw our support for the president-elect because of the 'thought crime' he has now committed? If that is what you want, you will be disappointed."
That is your framing - that we must choose between loyalty to Obama and speaking out about the Warren selection. The apologists for the selection of Warren have been saying that it is the critics of the selection who are being disloyal to Obama or harming him in some way. Again you have cleverly flipped the arguments of your opponent backward to use against them.
Then you say "now you will say 'of course I support Obama, BUT...'"
That is stolen directly from my posts where I said that the defenders of the Warren selection were saying "of course I support gay rights, BUT...'"
You merely flipped it around backward again.
"I suppose I also could say that THAT is 'not real support.' I could say that the 'BUT' invalidates everything that came before it, and sounds to most Democrats like a compromise, a half-measure, an insult."
This is a word for word piracy from me, twisted 180 degrees from what I said.
I suppose that I should be flattered. You have been unable or unwilling to stand and defend your own point of view, but you must be paying attention since you are stealing and corrupting the arguments of your opponents and turning them back on them.
214. I agree. Even if only 80% of DU was for gay marriage
Edited on Fri Dec-26-08 10:04 PM by Number23
(and I seriously doubt that number is anywhere NEAR that low), that would still be anywhere from 25-40% HIGHER than the rest of the country. I would wager that DU's numbers in support of marriage equality are higher than 90%, meaning that there is no doubt that gays on DU are amongst many, many friends.
So til my last dying breath on this earth, I will NEVER understand OP's like this and the DU'ers that are running over this entire site and insulting everyone not in their cliques with hurtful (and probably very untrue) insults. This is what - day number **12** of the Rick Warren madness?? 13?? Who knows?? And anyone know when it will cease, particularly as Obama has made it as clear as day that despite the controversy and beating of breasts, Warren will still be on that stage with him?
The problem is that some folks seem to think that the act of allowing Rick Warren to give a prayer is a stand-in for the whole, broad issue of civil rights for gays. It isn't.
I could NOT agree with you more. Someone posted a really good comment about all of this, "are we really at a point where people can isolate their friends and ALLIES over this issue" as has been done here with little thought or consideration? My guess is that there is still a sh*tload of work to be done, but if the 7 DU members who have been so unreasonable, hateful and harmful to their own cause over this issue (and we ALL know who they are) think that all of our help is not necessary or needed, and that everyone who is not frothing over Rick Warren is somehow against gay marriage and/or gay rights, then to them I say "more power to you." These folks seem to be the only ones in the history of the world who think that the less soldiers you have going into battle, the better. Can't help but wonder if Rumsfeld is amongst their ranks...
263. if we are at the point where our straight "allies"
are in charge of our struggle for civil rights then we've already lost. If you, and people like you, are mapping out our strategy, and telling us what is serious and what is not, and what is worth protesting and what is not, then we've lost.
Once we have to go to you to get permission to take issue with homophobia suddenly the bar will keep getting raised, and nothing will ever be quite serious enough to deserve protest. There will always be something more serious, more important that we need to prepare for, or wait for.
We don't sit down and say "are we attacking our allies?" We ask ourselves "are we attacking homophobia?" If we are attacking homophobia, and you're in somehow getting hit, then you need to ask yourself whether you are really an ally or not.
Instead of getting all condescending and questioning the entire LGBT community, look inward.
if we are at the point where our straight "allies" are in charge of our struggle for civil rights then we've already lost.
If you're going to just make shit up and pull things out of your @ss, then we have nothing to discuss with one another. I mentioned "friends," "allies" and "fellow soldiers" and in your jacked up brain you read "being in charge" and having to "grant permission." If you can find a comma, a word, ANYTHING in my post where I even SUGGESTED that heterosexuals were "in charge" of allocating gay rights, then we'll have a chat.
Since we both know that you won't, ta ta. I'm beyond bored with all of the foolishness and I also have no interest in kicking this thread again. You'll have to find someone else to pepper with your comprehension (dis)abilities...
55. Do you know what? I alerted on this thread just to recommend it to the mods and admins.
I did! I hit alert and in the message box I said that all the mods and admins should read this OP because you really get it. It's the best single post I've seen on this subject.
To all the non-GLBTers on DU: if you're offended or put out somehow by the "rage," the "outrage" that GLBT members exhibit on this site, you can either ignore it or support it. You can listen. Maybe you can even learn why they're saying such nasty things about such supposedly nice people. But trying to fight this anger or counteract it will only bring sharper anger, deeper sorrow, and deadlier rancor on both sides. Nothing pisses off an already justifiably angry person MORE than being told that their anger is illegitimate or excessive. So if you choose combat, do not be surpised to have your fire put out in a hurry.
A lot of the outrage is excessive and over the top. Some of it has gotten to the point of being ridiculous.
Saying that Obama's presidency is doomed because of the choice of Warren for the invocation is, don't you agree?
Change the subject entirely! Now we're suppossedly dooming the entire presidency.
I think we're going to end up with another triangulating clintonesque presidency, and Obama is going to keep moving to the right to satisfy critics. but that hardy means that anything is "doomed."
It just means that he's not serious about working for our rights.
Obama made a mistake that I think he should retract, no matter the incredible fallout that would ensue, however I do not fault him for having done anything more than just not knowing the true nature of his seemingly unimportant choice. Rick Warren is a bigot, however he is loved by the right and I think Obama's only intention was to reach out to the other side.
I am upset, and a little angry, but I think we should stay away from 'righteous.'
P.S. How long, Skinner, before 'Obama' is no longer a misspelled word?
but the word invokes the wrong feelings, like our 'righteous' war against the terrorists, etc. Some words true meanings have been obscured by history, the religious discrimination in the past associated with that word is exactly what we are trying to go against. Many 'christians' believe they are in a 'righteous' culture war against us and anyone else they dont understand and are afraid of. Were it not for such associations and pejoratives of said word I would have no problem with its usage at all.
I organized a No on Prop 8 protest in my hometown that drew 120 people so I am on your (our) side.
117. Well, consider for the moment that our definitions of "righteous" are both somewhat fixed
and allow for enough wiggle room to accomodate the kind of subjectivity which leads me to characterize a movement toward equality by a nascent and organizing body of oppressed people as sharing some of the same qualities that the religious imbue with their missions. In other words, if you want to see, in the gay rights movement, the kind of resolute and steadfast sureness of purpose and goodness that the religious see in their own actions, then you're free to do that. If you want to impose a more intransigent definition on "righteous," and say that it brings with it whiffs of the worst of religious hypocracy, and furthermore, that it carries a single interpretation, then I think we'd be at loggerheads, however - simply becuase that seems a bit TOO subjective for my tastes. Words can be the vehicles for various kinds of flavors and subtexts, and sometimes those flavors are highly personal things. For instance, if the last word i ever heard my father say before his death was "museum," I'm sure than any subsequent hearing of that word would invite certain associations in my own head, regardless of the intent of the speaker. I'm envisioning a broader, more inclusive definition of "righteous" in this context...in a reductive sense, to me the word connotes not just goodness, but a "purpose-driven" sense of goodness, minus the religiosity, if ya know what I mean. :wink:
Yeah, i'm a nerd about this shit, but i fuckin' LOVE the English language.
Anyhow, yeah - I certtainly didn't mean anything negative by using the word "righteous." To me, the connotations that word carries are uniformly positive, but everyone's mileage may vary.
121. something similar is brewing in women's rights
Edited on Fri Dec-26-08 02:32 PM by cap
social issues are going to be front and center whether Obama and progressives want them to or not.
You can't shut the gays down. You can't shut women down. People have suffered way too much under W. If we had someone halfway sensible as President for these past 8 years, the anger wouldn't have built up. But it's there now. And quite justifiably so. Unfortunately, the Democrats are going to have to deal with people who are not always going to be articulating their needs as though they were at high tea. It's going to be a bit unpleasant.
I used to be the drummer for a riot grrrl band back in the 90s, and was immersed in that scene. I've known, loved, and respected my share of righteously pissed-off women, and can't wait for more of them to start making noise.
And please take this with the serious nature in which it is written. I'm not being flippant, I really want to understand it.
I understand the anger over the prayer, and by all means, those who are angry rant away. I fully understand that many in the GLBT community may not have a voice in their local communities and DU provides a forum for like-minded people. So, all hail the first amendment, and as Buddy Holly said, rave on.
Anyway, what I'm confused about is why is two minutes of prayer which is heavy in symbolism and has little real-life impact, is getting MORE attention than the efforts of Jerry Brown and others in California who are trying to get the Prop 8 vote overturned?
We are all well aware of how many threads there have been started about the Warren issues .... yet there have only been four threads about the Prop. 8 situtation in the same time frame.
I'm just confused as to why a prayer is getting more attention than an actual law. After Pastor Rick is done with his prayer, a few minutes will have passed and the world will be just like it was before he rose to pray, nothing will have changed. Conversely, if Jerry Brown and others are not successful in their effots, a law will be in effect that will FORCE hundreds of gay and lesbian couples to legally accept that their marriages simply never happened. If that happens, then ALL of us will be a little less free.
132. First of all prop 8 happened nov 5th not just in the last few days.
Edited on Fri Dec-26-08 02:45 PM by lionesspriyanka
there were several prop 8 protests and MANY MANY threads afterwards on du
The only way to battle prop 8 now, is to donate to ACLU since they are representing prop 8 victims
I dont know why you think this is getting more attention with in our community than prop 8 is. Its getting more attention on du, mostly because anytime a glbt proplem occurs, immediately there are threads that indicate we should shut up about it. The problem on DU then escalates.
Gay activists, including me, point to warren to show the disregard the majority have for the minority, but we are hardly suing obama about it. Most of us are focussed on the courts and on the next battle grounds
We do have a right to complain about our symbolic treatment by obama and the shut up about it attitude his chearleaders on this site have created.
I am assuming you dont engage in very many GLBT rights politics, protest, rallyies or fundraisers. If you did, then you would know that our attention is very much on prop 8
134. "the shut up about it attitude his chearleaders on this site have created"
Who has created that attitude? It's unfair to characterize anyone who made a statement giving Obama the benefit of the doubt as such. I think people can express their fatigue with the subject after more than 600 threads on Warren in a week's time, especially after one acknowledges that Obama is unlikely to change his mind. While Warren's choice is disappointing, the insistence on pounding a dead horse is equally disappointing. The comment you responded to is specific to the number of posts about Warren as opposed to Jerry Brown's efforts or something more constructive.
140. But see, here is where I'm going to address that question and try to help you understand
Edited on Fri Dec-26-08 03:32 PM by RandomKoolzip
It's not my role to determine the volume, length, or intensity of hurt and anger that GLBT Duers feel, since I'm not of their group. You can express an opinion, you can observe and deliberate and make what you consider to be constrcutive decisions. But please remember that what YOU may find "over the top" or "excessive," others may find not enough, or timid. Just as i wouldn't counsel a grieving widow about how to properly channel the mix of emotions she feels, i also wouldn't impose a time-limit, or a severity-limit, or even a post-count limit, on how DU's GLBT community chooses to express and chennel THEIR grief and rage and hurt, simply out a respectful recognition of my boundaries and theirs.
Also please recognize that GLBT DUers are going to be feeling this anger for a while, and that attempts to quash it will only make it worse for them (and for yourself).
Like I said in my OP, we're all, all of us in the straight community, going to have to come to grips with this problem, becaue the GLBT rights movement is mobilizing and coalescing in a way that promises (not "threatens") to profoundly change our society. So we had better start recognizing the hurt and anger of our GLBT allies, because the paradigms are shifting in their direction.
149. But it's your role to tell others how they should respond?
You are calling out one group in an attempt to justify the outrage of another, and not everyone in each of those groups is exclusively straight or gay.
Most Duers here have deemed outrage at Warren justified, you are advancing a strawman to claim that opinions that are not in line with the continuing outrage are wrong.
152. No, I'm saying that *I* don't have the right to act as a spokesperson for
group that doesn't include me as a member - and especially so, since I'm of the powerful majority, and the group in question is a minority with barely any institutional power. Of course, I can only speak for myself. When i'm speaking to my fellow straights about the situation within the DU GLBT community, I'm expressing *my* opinion and offering suggestions for the rest of us. If you don't want to listen, that's fine. If you, on the other hand, wish to criticize, berate, or condescend to the GLBT community on DU by telling them what and how to respond to their civil rights crisis, then by all means have at it. Alls i'm saying is that you shouldn't be surprised to have your cyber-ass handed to you if you choose to do so.
156. Outrage at Warren isn't limited to his position on gays,
"If you don't want to listen, that's fine. If you, on the other hand, wish to criticize, berate, or condescend to the GLBT community"
Who the hell is doing that? Like I said: strawman.
People can be tired of some of this issue without it being against the gay community. Also, there is no reason why the outrage that crosses the line into being over the top and ridiculous shouldn't be characterized as such.
170. Okay, this is EXACTLY what I'm trying to get across to you:
Probably without even knowing it, you've given me the perfect example of a straight person unconsciously (or maybe not even un-) dictating just how the GLBT community should feel about the issue - which I would characterize as condescension, even criticism.
Your comment, which I've bolded here:
"If you don't want to listen, that's fine. If you, on the other hand, wish to criticize, berate, or condescend to the GLBT community"
Who the hell is doing that? Like I said: strawman.
is followed just a few words later with this:
there is no reason why the outrage that crosses the line into being over the top and ridiculous
I hope I don't have to make that any clearer for you. Oh hell, why not: so who gets to draw "the line", then? You or the GLBT community? Who gets to determine when "outrage" over a civil rights crisis is "ridiculous?" You, or the people experiencing the crisis first-hand?
Look, honestly, I'm not trying to get on your case here. I'm just trying to make you see, just like how *I* was made to see, that maybe our words and our actions are not always in concert.
176. If those three specific ideas are what's crawlin' up yer butt, then maybe you ought
to narrow the focus of your critique, then, to JUST those three items. In fact, you should have at least addressed those three specific points of criticism at the outset, because, otherwise, honestly, it SOUNDS like your beef is with gays being angry in general.
And if it really IS just those three items, then getting in a huge huff about, what....three posters? Five, max? Is it worth your time?
177. Where are the posts that are "crawlin' up yer butt"?
Edited on Fri Dec-26-08 05:55 PM by ProSense
Your argument is a big fat strawman.
To all the non-GLBTers on DU: if you're offended or put out somehow by the "rage," the "outrage" that GLBT members exhibit on this site, you can either ignore it or support it. You can listen. Maybe you can even learn why they're saying such nasty things about such supposedly nice people. But trying to fight this anger or counteract it will only bring sharper anger, deeper sorrow, and deadlier rancor on both sides. Nothing pisses off an already justifiably angry person MORE than being told that their anger is illegitimate or excessive. So if you choose combat, do not be surpised to have your fire put out in a hurry.
that people have expressed disapproval of what they consider some over the top comments, not the outrage. You also refuse to acknowledge that your claim that people are offended by the outrage is simply nonsense. People may be frustrated that this issue appears to have consumed GD-P for nearly eight days now, with no end in sight. It is inaccurate to say people are offended by the outrage itself.
163. So the outrage is simply outrage about something that isn't happening?
Again, "the shut up and sit down attitude" you refer doesn't exist. Most people were outraged at the choice of Warren when he was announced. People can have the opinion that it's time to move on without personally disparaging anyone.
Anyways, yeah, i can only speak for myself, but the way i see it, the Rick Warthog choice is what I'd call a compound offense. That is, it lands right on top of (A) the passing of Prop 8, which landed right on top of (B) Obama's refusal to appoint ALL progressives to his staff, which ITSELF landed on top of (C) Obama's embrace of Donnie McClurkin back in the primaries, and, lastly but most importantly, ALL OF WHICH landed on top of (D) a general suspiciousness that many GLBTers on DU feel about the sincerity of the "support" the rest of us claim to have for them.
Obama choosing to support Rick Warren, by itself, wouldn't have set off this torrential DU shitstorm, or at least i don't think it would have, even though it exhibits PROFOUND tone-deafness on his part; it, rather, was a huge symbolic gesture by Obama that came at the worst possible time for DU's GLBT community - just weeks after Prop 8, which devastated them, Obama makes a decision to honor the fucking jerk who aided and abetted that devastation. AND it followed the raw, chafed emotions that still lingered over how Obama handled the McClurkin incident; the PE's behavior there sent a muddled message to many in the GLBT community - it definitely wasn't unequivocal support for their rights by any means, so many here were still fairly wary of the man. All of which, of course, is compounded by the million little slights, comments, offhand remarks, and unconscious homophobic subtexts that happen on DU all the time that no one gets called on, which go uncorrected, and which leave many gay DUers feeling alienated and suspicious. Then, when they LEGITIMATELY explode in anger over all these wrongs, the majority of DUers, who of course,are typically straight white males, tell them their rage is "over the top," that they ought to just calm down, that they're rockin' the boat again. I mean, just how disrespectful of the GLBT community can you BE and still call yourself liberal? When is it gonna be someone else's turn at the podium?
Okay, so i'm ranting a little bit. Anyways, to bring it back to Warren; it's not "just" a prayer. It's a culmination point. This stopped being "just" about Rick Warring a loooong time ago - this is about basic issues of respect on DU, and also about our common humanity.
.... I guess I'm just still confused. I COMPLETELY understand the outrage over the prayer, over Barack's not wanting to publically support gay marriage, etc. I know it's extremly difficult being gay and living in America and I dont want anyone to think I'm discounting that. I would have simply thought, given the current atmosphere, these threads would received more praise/attention than they did.
138. Right, I can understand that. But please remember that DU is not
fully, accurately representative of what happens in the real world. Out there, in real time, there are many GLBT activists, lawyers, and assorted other organizations which are fighting the effects and the causes of Prop 8. In fact, DUers you may see posting here about Warren may also be fighting Prop 8 and doing good work for the community in real time. On DU, however, many are also still coming to grips with chafed emotions, dismissed outrage, and various slaps to the face administered by people they thought were friends. And if they choose to make that the topic of discourse, then who am i to tell the GLBT community on DU that it's wrong to do so? I'm straight. I don't get to dictate how GLBters feel, the severity of how they feel, or how they choose to express how they feel. All I can really do is pledge my support in the clearest, most sincere terms possible, give them space to seethe and grieve, and find out who to donate money to to fight this shit that's hurting them.
I've never thought of DU as a think-tank, or some sort of organizational foundation or anything. i've always thought of it as a meeting place, a bulletin board, and a space where we can all come together and talk - and if that talk includes ranting, irrationality, whetever, so be it. But you can still post "irrational" things on Du and work for change in the real world at the same time, and to dismiss all GLBTers on DU as only engaging in the former is a mischaracterization.
222. The status of Prop 8 is being decided by the CA Supreme Court...
there's not much we can do about this except support those, like Jerry Brown, who are turning against it. I agree that Jerry Brown should have gotten more coverage, but not in GDP.
What hurts most is that Obama has expressed his "separate but equal" view on gay marriage at Saddleback Church, and now is following that up with a position of honor for Warren. Those of us who have been protesting Prop 8 would like to see more separation of church and state, yet Obama seems to be rubbing our noses in it for the sake of unifying the nation.
157. Yes, and I wanted a woman to be the top general of the military in 1975. When society is
ready, it will happen. I'm still waiting but it will happen, some day.
Yes, it's WRONG. Yes, discrimination is horrific, but you CAN'T FORCE CHANGE ... just like the right wing is finding out, you also can't legislate morality, i.e., either good or bad morality.
I believe in EQUAL rights for the GLBT community but you can NOT force it on society ... you must CONVINCE society to be on your side ... that "convincing" is not through RIGHTEOUS anger but through COMMUNITY OUTREACH.
Since most significant advances in Civil Rights were forced on society.
1. The abolition of slavery
2. Integration of the Military
3. Integration of Schools
4. Integration of restaurants, bathrooms, drinking fountains, etc.
The majority is often opposed to granting another group civil rights. It usually comes about through tragedy, necessity or FORCED UPON THEM BY THE GOVERNMENT.
192. The situation in California may well be unconstitutional -- it won't be
defended by Jerry Brown, who is supposed to defend passed initiatives, but has declined to defend this one. And the law itself seems plain that a simple majority vote in an initiative can't take away a right guaranteed by the state constitution.
So I'm waiting to pass judgment till I see how this works out.
236. If the "situation" in CA is unconstitutional...
Edited on Sat Dec-27-08 10:59 AM by keepCAblue
...then, arguably, so are the "situations" in 29 other states which have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and/or adoption by same-sex couples, not to mention DOMA, which spits in the face of the U.S. constitution by sanctioning the states' rights to discriminate against a persecuted minority.
Just what exactly is it you are waiting to pass judgement on? One does not need to wait for the outcome of CA's prop 8 lawsuit to see what has happened and continues to happen in this country: The religious wrong's zealous and systematic assault on the rights of people based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Open your eyes. This is *their* WAR on GAYS.
You know, it was that same "wait and see" apathy that allowed Hitler to advance throughout Europe, destroying everything in his path of quest for power in the name of religion and white supremacy.
210. Anger over Prop 8 is legit, anger of Warren is understandable
still it's not the anger that is the issue, it's the bad actions and words that were spurred by that anger. As is often the case with anger, it becomes misdirected and makes one prone to make mistakes and act at less than their best. If anyone thinks they are immune to the negative effects of anger, they are only fooling themselves.
238. Bad actions and words have come from both sides.
You yourself with your smug know-it-all attitude about how gay people should be feeling and behaving has been a huge part of the DU problem. You're in damn near every thread discussing "our" bad behavior but I've not seen you once in solidarity with LGBT people tell the other side that maybe they're being harsh or rude. You have no credibility because while you are telling me about the speck in my eye, you ignore the log in your own.
He's on far too many threats, feigning ignorance to challenge LGBT people. He insists that his opinions are absolute truth, but LGBT people apparently aren't capable of understanding the truth. Apparently we are just out to cause trouble, attacking straight people for the hell of it.
220. I just saw Milk, and I totally understand....
given the history. My daughter and her boyfriend saw it with me. She's 18 and voted in her first election for Obama. They had both been horrified about Prop 8 in California. Seeing Milk brought it all home all the more, especially in the understanding that Obama has appointed an Anita Bryant to give his inaugural invocation. All my daughter could say was, maybe he wanted to unite everyone, but it seems like a big mistake.
and anybody who is filled with despair about Prop 8 should see the movie. Harvey Milk was a true leader in that he did not let temporary defeat dissuade him off of the goal.
225. Rick Warren Is a Hypocrite and Protector of Pedophile Clergies
Rick Warren equates homosexuality to pedophilia. But he rarely, if not never, talks about the child sex crimes often committed by Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) churches' pastors and staffs within SBC churches. One of the biggest news that was underreported in 2008 was the SBC's refusal to create a database of the list of SBC pastors and staffs who are credibly alleged and/or convicted of child molestation.
If Rick Warren keeps talking against homosexuality and abortion but avoiding the child molestation within his own Christian denomination, he is not a true servant of God. In such case, Rick Warren is just another Christian hypocrite. In the end, you will wonder which of his associate and assistant pastors in the Saddleback Church are/were criminal child molesters.
See http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm for more details. I see the child molestation issue within the SBC and other Christian denominations more serious issue than the issues of homosexuality than abortion. At least gays and lesbians and pro-choice people can make their voices heard. Children who fall victims to sex crimes by their own pastors are too often silenced.
226. The truly unfortunate aspect of the choice of Rick Warren
is that his "inclusion" has the unavoidable consequence of exclusion for those of us who TRULY believe in equal rights. Basically, in order for Obama to fit the Warrens of the world in his "big tent", he has kicked out many of us who helped him be in the position to even consider to include him. Once again, the gays get shat on.
228. The anger towards Obama's supporters has got to stop, however. Divide and Conquer is the RNC's
Edited on Sat Dec-27-08 10:05 AM by McCamy Taylor
favorite strategy for keeping the working man down. Speculation about what might have happened to Prop 8 if Clinton's name had been on the ballot in California instead are sort of like closing the barn door after the cow is out. The opponents of Prop 8 are the ones who needed to work against it.
Get over yourselves. Obama will be the President of ALL of the United States and ALL of its people. Stop trashing Warren and start teaching him that you are nothing to be feared. That what you do in your bedroom between consenting adults has nothing to do with your work ethics, core beliefs in helping humanity, lessons you teach your children, how you fight for your country, or otherwise. This outrage is misdirected. It should be directed at the people who worded the Prop 8 Amendment for one thing. I believe it was worded, using double negatives, of course, that's how they like to trick people into voting for it, instead of against it or vice versa. This law of inequality will be overturned as it goes against the Constitution. It does not matter what people think it should mean. It is what it is. All men/women are created equal....and have equal rights. Rick Warren is trying to make restitution for his mistakes. I think it is a good thing that this has happened as it has opened his eyes to the reality of the magnitude of people living alternative lifestyles. People that do not have a gay family member or friend or who live in rural areas, are not as exposed to the variety of choices individuals make for themselves. Homophobia is a problem as is racism, sexism, ageism, etc. in the world. But it is ignorance that drives these beliefs and hate that motivates them. Right now, you are acting hatefully. You should take a lesson from Melissa Ethridge and give the guy a chance.
235. "Start teaching him that you are nothing to be feared"?
Edited on Sat Dec-27-08 10:48 AM by the dogfish
LOL
Seriously, I'm not sure what kind of "lessons" you seem to think gay people should be expected to offer to convince the homophobes of the world that we're decent people. Some might say that the homophobes themselves could probably simply look around them and glean that information, but you apparently think it's our fault that they haven't and we ought to do something about it while assholes like Warren sit around and attack & slander us on videotapes to congregations who are happy to believe such garbage. That's ok- we should 'grow up' and 'get over it', right?
You think that gays should work even harder to convince people like Warren and those who think like him and lie like him that we're "nothing to be feared", but you'll take a little hearsay from Melissa Etheridge as enough to convince yourself that Warren is trying to make restitution for his mistakes? He hasn't even denounced his lies and slander against gays on TV or the radio, has he?
So are thousands of other Americans, maybe even some other people Obama has chosen to make a part of his cabinet. Is there a GLBT test given to every person in Obama's cabinet and inner circle? Are they all asked about their views on marriage? Is this a witch hunt? Feels like it. I know how I wanted to spit on Michele Bachmann when she said everyone in Congress should be tested for their anti-American views. Well, this is sort of the same. Either you have the right of "freedom of thought" in America, or you don't. Which is it?
This is not about "the variety of choices individuals make for themselves" nor "people living alternative lifestyles." If you think that it is, then that explains your anger and hostility.
Why should we "stop trashing Warren?" Who else should we not criticize? Had Bush selected Warren for a similar role, we would be "trashing" him, would we not? what is different now?
Why is it our job or worry to "teach" Warren anything, or be concerned with "opening his eyes?"
You are suggesting that Warren's leadership role - his importance and influence - is separate from his program of promoting homophobia. They are one and the same. His career, his influence and power, were attained by pandering to people's bigotry. It is his power and influence, not his "beliefs" that represent the danger. Thinking that we can acknowledge, legitimatize and validate his power and influence, and then somehow change his "beliefs" and that of we could this would be a desirable thing, is misguided at nest and dangerous at worst.
You do not understand the religious right leaders - you think it is about beliefs rather than misleading people to get power and influence.
You think that being gay is "choosing" an "alternative lifestyle."
Those assumptions, those premises, are both clearly false, and without them your argument here completely collapses and all we are left with is the dismissal and hostility.
If you are, then you should get out more. Did you know that there is a place called Canada where gays can actually get married? There are also several places like that in Europe. One is a place called Belgium. Another is a place called Spain.
If you look these countries up, you will discover that they have other things, too...things like universal health care, mass transit, government inspectors who actually inspect. You might also find other countries where some form of domestic partnership laws are on the books. I recommend Wikipedia.
Maybe next time, you could go there first? Before you start making things up?
The US routinely votes with middle eastern countries in the UN AGAINST rights, protections and even recognition rights for women, children and LGBT people. We are codifying homophobia into law in the US.
What point are you trying to make? Do you think we should be happy where we are and stop trying so hard to make things better? Do you think things are already good enough?
Let me guess, you're one of our straight allies we need to make sure we don't alienate.
276. To me it's a matter of justice, pure and simple...
like the Civil Rights movement in the Sixties. Like the women's movement, beginning in the 1970s and ongoing--that battle isn't over, not by a LOOONG way!
Re To all the non-GLBTers on DU: if you're offended or put out somehow by the "rage," the "outrage" that GLBT members exhibit on this site, you can either ignore it or support it. You can listen. Maybe you can even learn why they're saying such nasty things about such supposedly nice people. But trying to fight this anger or counteract it will only bring sharper anger, deeper sorrow, and deadlier rancor on both sides. Nothing pisses off an already justifiably angry person MORE than being told that their anger is illegitimate or excessive. So if you choose combat, do not be surpised to have your fire put out in a hurry.
Yeah, it was the same old song in the 1970s when the women's movement was first getting off the ground. We were always being lectured about how "strident" and "unfeminine" we were, how unseemly and off-putting was our rage, and yeah...often enough, that our anger was often illegitimate and always, always ALWAYS excessive!
So I can definitely relate to what you're saying. I will never tell anyone they have "no right to be angry" when their rights are being trampled. So I support the gay community unequivocally in their struggle against injustice. No qualifiers. No ands, ifs or buts.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
Replies to this thread
-
-