The Democratic Party is going to have to confront homophobia.

[yardwork]

Homophobia is like the crazy aunt living upstairs - everybody knows she's there, but nobody wants to talk about it.

Some people on DU are genuinely outraged that anybody dare question their right to be bigots. "I'm a Christian!" they exclaim. "How can my religiously-motivated feeling that homosexuality is wrong be considered bigotry?"

On a thread pointing out the inconsistencies inherent in using selected passages from English-translation versions of the Bible while ignoring all the other passages, a few posters claimed that it is simply wrong to criticize their religion, period. These same posters probably feel no compunction about criticizing other people's religions.

The simple truth is that institutionalized homophobia is tolerated to a very great extent in this country. It is institutionalized in the form of thousands of laws and regulations that discriminate against people solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. It is institutionalized in the form of religious condemnation that is based on selective reading of selected passages while entire sections of the Bible are conveniently ignored.

Sooner or later, this country will confront its homophobia, as it confronted slavery and Jim Crow in the past. Sooner or later this country - I hope and trust - will progress as it has done in other ways, and lift the bigoted prejudicial discriminations against queer people. When that happens, a whole lot of people are going to conveniently forget that they ever thought there was anything wrong or even odd about loving a person of the same sex.

So I put out a challenge to everyone who considers themselves to be a Democrat. Which side are you on? Are you going to put down your prejudices now, or later? Will you wait until most people have figured out that discrimination against gay people is wrong, or will you stand up for human rights now?

[racaulk]

1. You had me at "crazy aunt."

Very nice post. :thumbsup:

K&R

[yardwork]

4. Thank you!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Religions respond to laws and customs

One of the big fights in the early Christian church was whether Christians had to be circumcised. If so, there was ZERO chance of spreading Christianity to adult male gentiles. So they decided, no, you don't have to be circumcised to follow Christ.

Mormons accepted that black people can go to heaven right about the same time the 1960s civil rights laws passed. It was no coincidence.

The religious bigots today are buttressed by the state of the law, and homophobic Democrats are also. Gays are second-class citizens under law, so there MUST be something wrong with them.

If the law changed, most religions would change to conform to the law to remain relevant.

[yardwork]

3. I agree. That is why biblical passages are selectively chosen.

The laws create the beliefs, not the other way around.

[Glorfindel]

27. You're right...I'm old enough to remember when

it was unthinkable that a divorced person would dream of stepping foot inside a church. Now there would be no congregations left if that were the case.

[sampsonblk]

5. Some will never get it

1. There is no discussion, if the opposite point of view is not permitted at DU. So on the outside, it appears that you are right. But you are not even close.

2. No one has complained at DU about criticizing religion, or christianity in particular. I've done that myself. The complaint stems from making fun of someone's religious beliefs, or making fun of someone having any religious beliefs.

3. A huge segment of the Democratic Party is christian. There are more christians who vote Dem than there are any other religion, including atheism. So making fun of christianity is both foolhardy and counter-productive. Fortunately, the candidates know that. Even if so many at DU can't figure it out. Fortunately, very very few people agree with you on this.

In all sincerety I ask again, since there are so many christian Dems, where are all the pro-christian threads at DU? I see several active threads hostile to christians, christianity and the bible. Where are all the opposing views?

[yardwork]

7. What are you talking about?

Seriously. I can't understand your post at all, and I don't see where it responds to my OP or thread at all.

[NMMNG]

9. You're bashing Christians

by stating that some people mis-use the Bible and their religion to support their homophobia. :eyes:

[Solon]

13. Don't worry about that poster, they think Homophobia is a required belief to be Christian...

or at least, a "Good" Christian. Actually challenged me to find ONE church in my area that supports GLBT couples, after a quick search, I found two, and didn't get a response after that.

[yardwork]

I know that, but there are many other Democrats who share that poster's beliefs.

That's why I started this thread.

The fact is that not one of the three leading Democratic candidates for president will state that they believe that gay people should be allowed to marry.

This is like stating that one doesn't believe that it's ok for black and white people to marry one another. It's like stating that one doesn't believe that it's ok to free slaves. It's like stating that one doesn't believe that women deserve the right to vote. Those are all examples of "main-stream" beliefs that a majority of people believed in the United States at one time. They have all fallen by the wayside. No elected official wants to be reminded that they ever believed or even said those things.

It's time for Civil Rights to extend to gay people. No more waiting. The time is now.

[Solon]

22. Oh, I know that, also on the issues you mentioned, the bigots used Christianity to oppose them...

Every single one of them, the Bible supported Slavery, and was used to support that institution. Later the "Son of Cain" curse was used to justify against interracial marriages and for Jim Crow laws. The Adam and Eve story was used to oppose equal rights for women, etc. Even today, some sects of Christianity still believe in some of this crap, but they are on the fringes now, not in the mainstream, the same should be done to those who believe Homosexuality is wrong. Kick them to the fringes, don't coddle the assholes.

[yardwork]

24. Yes, I agree. No more tolerance for bigotry.

Oh, and Happy Samhain!

[Solon]

30. Thanks!

What really pisses me off is this tolerance for bigotry, when a belief is WRONG, its not just "another point of view" and such a belief doesn't deserve any respect. I don't understand why its so hard for some people to figure that out.

[yardwork]

33. I don't think that they are really confused about the logic.

I think that they are bigots grasping at excuses for their bigotry.

In the same way, slave-holders claimed that the Bible justified their desire to own slaves.

[FreeState]

16. Care to point out why the OP is "not even close" ?

1. There is no discussion, if the opposite point of view is not permitted at DU. So on the outside, it appears that you are right. But you are not even close.

Care to point out why the OP is "not even close" ? I don't see how, but I would love to see what it is that makes the OP wrong...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. "How red was my herring"

"There is no discussion, if the opposite point of view is not permitted at DU."

Nobody has, to my knowledge, suggested that Christians not be allowed to post here on any topic, including Christianity. You are confusing "not permitted" with "not ass-kissed." When people say false things they will get some static for it, even if their falsehoods have majoritarian approval.

"No one has complained at DU about criticizing religion, or christianity in particular."

Comical hyperbole. Nobody can make that statement with a straight face.

"So making fun of christianity is both foolhardy and counter-productive."

This is a discussion forum, not a clearing house for propaganda. There are any number of official Democratic Party sites where Christians can browse without fear of mockery.

Unfortunately, when someone is obsessed with believing falsehoods they will misinterpret a lot of disagreement as "mockery" because people will say things like, "there is little difference between Jesus and Santa Claus." To you that might be mockery, but to me it is a simple statement of fact.

Which brings us full circle to:

"There is no discussion, if the opposite point of view is not permitted at DU."

Right on. There is no discussion if atheists keep their mouths shut in deference to the christians who, according to you, are not even here. But atheists should shut up anyway in hopes of luring more Christians here...

[mondo joe]

55. If I hve to welcome bigots to be a Democrat, I'm better of leaving the party. NT

[Bluebear]

108. 'No one has complained at DU about criticizing religion, or christianity in particular.'

Yes, that never happens. :eyes:

[sandnsea]

6. Someone is doing that very thing

and you choose to distort it. You have to talk to people to change their minds, with respect not ridicule.

[yardwork]

8. Who is doing what and what am I distorting?

I don't understand your post either.

[Solon]

15. Don't they have to EARN respect before you treat them with such? n/t

[sandnsea]

31. No

My behavior is based on my beliefs and values, not someone elses.

[Solon]

34. So is mine, and I don't tolerate bigotry...

If someone is a bigot, I will treat them as such, such people don't deserve, and can never earn, respect, period.

[sandnsea]

38. You can confront bigotry

and be respectful of someone else's basic humanity while you do it.

[yardwork]

40. I'm sure that 99% of us agree about that. Now, care to discuss the OP?

You've done a good job attempting to highjack this thread and make it about a particular candidate. Are you willing to discuss the actual subject at hand?

[sandnsea]

45. The person I'm replying to doesn't

and has already said so.

I am discussing the subject at hand. Democrats are working very hard to get elected to extend all federal rights to gay citizens.

[yardwork]

50. Really? I hadn't heard. Please point me to that candidate.

[Solon]

41. Being human doesn't mean someone deserves any respect, their behaviors and beliefs...

are what we should base our respect for them on. If someone is an asshole, they are an asshole, period. I don't see what their humanity has to do with that.

[sandnsea]

46. I think all humans deserve respect n/t

[Solon]

47. Respect shouldn't be automatic, the most I would allow is that all humans deserve to have certain...

rights, to freedom, life, and pursuit of happiness. At the same time, I don't believe that humans that believe in restricting those rights for other groups of people deserve respect, or are bigoted against people for being what they are.

[yardwork]

51. Do queer people deserve the same respect as straight people?

If we do, are you willing to extend that right to laws?

[Maven]

49. Confronting bigotry is not the same as coddling or legitimizing it. n/t

[DCKit]

10. I'll have to ask my gay boyfriend about this. nt

[NMMNG]

11. Yes, they are

Ignoring it and just assuming that we'll keep voting Democratic because we have no better choice simply isn't going to cut it any more. We will not be Log Cabin Democrats. We will not keep getting thrown under the bus. We will not keep shutting up to "avoid losing the election for the Dems". We are not anybody's punching bag.

[yardwork]

12. I think that some people are surprised at how "uppity" gays are getting by demanding rights.

On another thread I noted that I don't want "tolerance." I want legal rights.

[sandnsea]

14. And every Democrat wants to give you legal rights

well except for the two who voted to put discrimination against gays in the state constitution of South Carolina.

[yardwork]

18. Not one of the leading Democratic candidates believe I should be allowed to marry.

I don't want some rights. I want all the rights every straight person has.

[sandnsea]

28. So why label one a bigot

and ignore the rest. Legal rights, nobody disagrees with that.

[yardwork]

32. Legal rights - lots of people disagree. You're ignoring the crazy aunt at the table.

I haven't labeled any of the candidates bigots, nor have I ignored any of their failings. The candidate I lean toward supporting in the primaries is Kucinich. He's come out in favor of same-sex marriage. He didn't always feel that way. People can change.

[NMMNG]

25. Shame on you

Wanting the same thing others have. :sarcasm:

[Egnever]

66. Really what you going to do vote republican?

Your threat is noted and scoffed at. Unfortunately for you you have no choice. You can vote for the guy that wants to give you a little or vote for the guy who wants to make a constitutional amendment to ban your lifestyle.

Get back to me on your choice.

[Chovexani]

67. Wow.

Why didn't you just say "haha you fucking queer" and get it over with?

[Egnever]

75. Would it make you happy?

Sorry the truth sucks. But you ain't getting a better shot at what you want than what the Dem's are offering right now anywhere else.

To threaten to go somewhere else is laughable.

I wish there were more choices so you actually could assert your issues more forcefully but the reality is there isn't.

Unless you want to start a third party. If so let me know I might even get on board cause god knows we need one.

[Chovexani]

78. Yes, because at least you'd be honest.

I like how people who tell us this shit are constantly harping about "your issues".

It's very telling.

[sniffa]

80. don't miss his thread

it's particuLarLy nauseating. :puke:

but remember, vote dem. :puke:

[yardwork]

83. I'm not talking about my lifestyle. Being gay is not a lifestyle

any more than being straight is a lifestyle.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[closeupready]

91. What am I going to do? Do something healthier. Like stay home and watch Survivor, and put my money

to work for me in a 401(k) account.

[NMMNG]

96. Oooooh, that's original.

Why didn't you just call me a histrionic, uppity homo and get it over with?

[sniffa]

81. no votes, no money

no more enabLing them.

[NMMNG]

97. rAmen

Fuck them and their homophobic enablers.

[sniffa]

101. seriousLy. that's the onLy thing to do.

and i Laugh everytime someone says, "what are you gonna do? vote repub? ha! you have to vote dem."

we don't have to fucking shit. i wiLL no Longer vote for the Lesser of two eviLs, since eviL is stiLL eviL.

and if the dem ends up Losing, they can go suLk somewhere and bLame us again, as opposed to picking a shitty candidate.

[FredScuttle]

17. Excellent post

Minimizing bigotry in the cloak of religion is still bigotry. I'm all for healthy dialogue and reasoned debate, but excusing bigotry, homophobia, racism, sexism and any other host of social ills because their committed in the name of a religion is a dealbreaker for me.

By the way, to those who think that religious people are persona non grata at DU, there are currently 12 subgroups in the Religion Groups section of the website.

[IndianaJones]

19. not in my lifetime. nt.

[yardwork]

20. Ready or not, I think that it is happening now.

[IndianaJones]

23. The people confronting are the victims. In general, everyone else could care less. nt

[yardwork]

26. That's not what I see at all. I see lots of people standing up about this.

This is the beginning of an overwhelming movement. The crazy aunt came downstairs and sat down at the dinner table.

[ulysses]

54. your forceful swagger is noted, but why not?

[IndianaJones]

56. observation. nt.

[ulysses]

58. of what?

[IndianaJones]

59. bigotry in our great land. nt.

[ulysses]

61. so homophobia will shield the Dems from having to confront the issue?

I suspect not.

[IndianaJones]

62. much simpler...it is not a concern. Why confront a non-issue. nt.

[ulysses]

69. so you say, and yet it is both an issue and a concern.

:shrug: What do we do now?

[IndianaJones]

71. it is a concern for the object of the hatred. I honestly do not know what to do. nt.

[stray cat]

29. if thats the only issue they may be right but permanantly out of power

[yardwork]

35. People said the same thing about the Democratic Party during the Civil Rights Movement.

Which side are you on?

[bigwillq]

36. Excellent post

K and R :bounce:

[yardwork]

37. Thank you!

[yardwork]

39. It's disappointing but not surprising to see hit-and-run posters on this thread.

Several posters have visited this thread long enough to say "You're wrong!" but not addressed any of the questions in my OP or responded to follow-up posts.

That is very typical of the way the "crazy aunt" is treated. Gays are "tolerated" by many Democrats as long as we stay quietly upstairs and don't insist on joining company for dinner.

[intheflow]

42. Religious leader checking in, supporting full civil/human rights for GLBTQ people.

I'm in training to be a minister. The whole purpose of religion, imo, is to foster compassion and to build a more just world. Other interpretations seem to just be missing the point. Proud to say my denomination has been ordaining openly gay clergy since the '70's.

[yardwork]

43. Thank you! I know that there are thousands like you.

Now we need to get the hundreds of millions on board.

[terrya]

44. Damn right they should

This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. It's about damn time that our party confronts it.

[IndianaJones]

48. Here is my question....If I am a bigot, is there room for me in Christianity? nt.

[yardwork]

52. I'll let a Christian answer that.

[eridani]

53. Obama has made his stand--firmly on the wrong side of history

The following excerpts are from Laura Flanders' book Blue Grit--

The next Democratic candidate considering running for president would do well to talk to activists like Justin Turner of Cincinnati Citizens to Restore Fairness, fighting to overturn the anti-gay Article XII.

From a skimpy minority of 32 percent who voted in favor of repeal in February 2004, the Restore Fairness campaign won over 53 percent of the vote on November 2. The campaign set a goal of turning out 60,000 supporive votes; the repeal proposition won with over 65,000. The gains came disproportionately from the most conservative parts of town.

"The key was to put a human face on the message and to address it head on," Turner told me on the phone from his home after the proposition passed.

Kerry campaigned in Cincinnati with the losing, instead of the winning, side. he brought onto the stage with him the one group of African American leaders that was not part of the Cincinnati for Fairness Coalition.

Those inconveniently irreverent and striving real people--whom pundits dare not mention by name but allude to with the code name "culture" --those Americans are the Democrats' base, whether the party likes it or not. Just ask any Republican. No amount of reframing or remessaging or plain ol' distancing will change that.

The truth is that Democrats, progressives and fair-minded Republicans will never be anti-gay or antichoice or anti-racial justice enough to quiet their opponents. The only people left with any doubt about where Democrats stand on cultural issues are those whose lives are at stake--the Democrats' base.

[MH1]

57. Good luck with that.

The hate has been thrown with the word "bigot" at people who have NOT said that homosexuality is wrong, who DO oppose discrimination, but do somehow deviate from the current politically correct orthodox consensus talking points.

So maybe some of the smarter and more dedicated folks in the GLBT community - here at DU and wherever else it happens - might want to calm down their friends and suggest that the word "bigot" be reserved for actual bigots.

Just a thought. It's really not my problem though, so consider this a public service message. (I do expect more hate to follow, but that will just help me fill out my ignore list.)

[sniffa]

82. Lame

i'm surprised you controLLed yourseLf in this post, from what i've seen from you of Late.

i do notice the most upset peopLe about the word bigot here, are the biggest bigot apoLogists on the board.

i'm a wicked smaht guy, so i'LL teLL the cLan to just caLL you a bigot enabLer from now on. i hope that heLps.

[yardwork]

84. So it is "hate" to point out bigotry? That's some twisted logic, there.

You really have to bend yourself into a pretzel to cast the people standing up for human rights as the haters.

[MH1]

94. It is hateful to call names without trying to understand the other position.

It only creates more conflict.

[yardwork]

100. Nonsense. Do you tip-toe around what you call white supremacists?

I understand the homophobic position and it is bigoted. It is bigotry to state that homosexuality is wrong. That's not "calling names." That's stating a fact. Look up the definition of bigot.

[MH1]

102. My initial post was referring to the use of "bigot" against people who do not say that.

You seem to have missed my entire point. I'm sorry I was not clear.

A person who does not say "homosexuality is wrong" but in some way deviates from the DUGLBT-approved talking points will be called a "bigot" by many DUGLBTers. That is wrong and can only hurt the GLBT cause. I am sorry if you cannot see that.

[yardwork]

105. You are misstating facts to erect a straw man that you then demolish.

There are no "DUGLBT-approved talking points." Not all gay people think alike. Maybe you didn't know that.

Nobody who hasn't said that homosexuality is wrong has been called a bigot by me or many others here, gay or straight.

[yardwork]

86. It is your problem, whether you realize it or not.

When a country systematically discriminates against a group of people, it fosters a culture of discrimination that devalues everyone's life.

[MH1]

95. I am against discrimination, and in general it's my problem, yes

But it is a problem I can not solve, and if a group being discriminated against chooses to harm their own cause by spitting on people who are on their side, it is "not my problem" in the sense that I can walk away, and expend my limited resources on problems where I might be able to help make progress - there is plenty of discrimination in this world to resolve.

[yardwork]

99. So protesting about Obama's decision is the same as "spitting" on him?

That is a straw man argument. I don't see many people spitting on Obama. I do see people stating that they are disappointed in him.

[MH1]

103. I am referring to the words of DUGLBTers against other DUers. nt

[sniffa]

104. he just won't quit

off to spit on peopLe i'm toLd are on my side.

[yardwork]

106. What the hell are you talking about? You just invented a new term that has no meaning.

[calteacherguy]

60. I think Obama's SC campaign is a step in the right direction to that end. nt

[FredScuttle]

63. Exactly...just like MLK invited Bull Connor and George Lincoln Rockwell to a SCLC meeting

n/t

[calteacherguy]

64. False analogy. nt

[FredScuttle]

72. But of course it is

Only one of those guys invited a bigot to appear at one of their events.

[hulklogan]

70. Straight people who don't believe in full equality talking to homophobes

isn't going to accomplish a thing.

[MH1]

79. Agreed.

http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/contact_hypothesis.htm

particularly Allport, G. (1954) The nature of prejudice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

[pissnoffrethugs]

65. I could never tolerate bigotry

These homophobic right wingers are not to be tolerated. They spew off so much vile disgusting things, I could never stand by without doing something about what they are saying.

[zulchzulu]

68. The only way to confront homophobia is to engage in conversation and education

If you just try to yell in their faces or try to just demonize them, nothing gets accomplished.

[ruggerson]

73. Who engaged the bigots in South Carolina?

I heard all this lip service about "engagin" but when the rubber hit the road, the bigots had free rein on stage and no one engaged them, or the audience, about anything.

[FredScuttle]

74. This is the new definition of "engagement"

Giving ex-gay clowns a microphone, a stage and a capacity audience to spew their filth without opposition or balance. Then, defending that decision without regard to your own LGBT platform.

[hulklogan]

76. Two dozen brave protestors engaged the bigots

that's about it, really.

[William769]

88. It's South Carolina, how many did you expect?

[IndianaJones]

77. you step around them and enact laws and force them to comply. nt.

[yardwork]

85. I think that history shows that that is the right way to approach this.

Enact the laws and the religions and social expectations follow.

[William769]

87. AND YOU DON"T GIVE THEM A PLATFORM TO SPEW FROM!

[mondo joe]

89. Giving a bigot an unchallenged platform is "engaging" them?

[yardwork]

92. That's the idea. And if we protest, then we're the haters.

Didn't you get the memo?

[mondo joe]

93. One might wonder what the response would be if Hillary had Imus emcee for her and spent a

half hour railing about "nappy headed hos" as a way of engaging bigots.

[yardwork]

98. Somebody on another thread mentioned Dean's stupid comment about Confederate flag wavers.

I remember how appalled I was when Dean said that, and I said so here, too.

Imagine if Howard Dean had asked a white supremacist to emcee one of his campaign events and allowed the white supremacist to discuss his views in the middle of the event. Imagine if Dean had refused to drop the white supremacist from the event, but offered to allow a black preacher to make a short prayer at the very beginning of the event, before most of the audience had arrived, as a way of "engaging the white supremacists."

Imagine if the entire event was pretty much a celebration of how the audience's religion requires them to be white supremacists, and anyone who protested this was called a "hater" and told that they were obviously unwilling to "engage in conversation" with "the other point of view."

Somehow I doubt that there would have been much controversy on DU about the appropriate response to that. 100% of DUers would have been revolted.

[NMMNG]

107. How does one "educate" a homophobe

by giving a 30 minute sermon against homosexuality? Please tell me.