"Obama talks gay. (Again.)"

[Bluebear]

Time’s running out for the presidential candidates.

The Iowa Caucuses are a mere 52-days away and trust the the hopefuls have been doing double time trying to persuade voters that they’re the real deal. Take, for example, Barack Obama…

The Senator from Illinois spent some of his precious time readdressing the Donnie McClurkin anti-gay gospel gaffe. Obama writes for The Bilerico Project:

"The events of the last several weeks are not the occasion that I would have chosen to discuss America’s divisions on gay rights and my own deep commitment to GLBT equality. Now that the issue is before us, however, I do not intend to run away from it. These events have provided an important opportunity for us to confront a difficult fact:There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community.

We will not secure full equality for all GLBT Americans until we learn how to address that deep disagreement and move beyond it."

Yeah, that’s totally true, but wouldn’t it just be easier to shame them into social submission? It is, after all, only fair. As for them being “moral” - sorry, babe, but we disagree. They can be good and decent, but saying gays burn in hell doesn’t qualify as “moral”. Misguided, yes, but not moral.

Obama goes on to highlight his homo-friendly political record, as well as vow to pass civil unions, the same lame legislative mechanism the New York Times calls “flawed”. Obama writes:

"…I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples – whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."

We won’t hold such political optimism - or willful thinking - against Obama, or any other candidate, but we have to point out that relying on federalism does not guarantee equal rights for all, the main tenet of our constitution. But who wants to get into a legal debate? There’s an election to win!

http://www.queerty.com/news/obama-talks-gay-again-20071112/

[terrya]

1. Maybe it's just me, but people who embrace that "ex-gay" crap...

aren't "good and decent" people in my book.

[Taverner]

84. I am friends with a lot of people I disagree with

Trust me, bridges are how people change. And by change I'm referring to them not you

You're pretty damn alright in my book...

ON EDIT:

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

Right now its that penultimate stage.

[MethuenProgressive]

111. Obama's 'support' of gay rights is as phony as his "y'all"

Do they really say "y'all" in Hawaii, Barack?

[ellisonz]

123. Actually, y'all has entered popular American discourse and is no longer simply regional.

Kinda like ain't.

[closeupready]

2. Heck, I even disagree with "good" or "decent". How can you be good or decent

and reject your gay or lesbians brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, parents, family based upon nothing more than the fact that they were born gay or lesbian??? Answer: you can't.

[RufusTFirefly]

19. You're right. You can't.

As I see it, there are only two ways in which you can claim to be "good" or "decent" and still be homophobic, both of them delusional.

1. You can keep asserting the canard that being gay or lesbian is some sort of choice one makes.
2. You can claim that certain ambiguous lines in an error-laden, questionably translated religious book justify your bigotry.

[emilyg]

21. Agree. You can't.

[Maven]

95. Exactly. I doubt Obama would be trying to sell us racists who were "good and decent"

in all other respects.

It's a joke.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

114. Consider all the people that rules out.

It excludes the vast majority of people who lived before about 1950, for one thing.

That's not necessarily an indefensible position, but it's certainly one that requires a defence.

[closeupready]

115. I guess so, but context matters. Since this is 2007, times have changed.

It's no longer defensible in the minds of most people to exclude your gay family members from participating in your community due to their sexual orientation; it's cruel and bigoted and hateful, even if your church sanctions doing so.

Now, I guess someone could reasonably argue, "I must exclude them because my community is ignorant," but why would you do that? Would you even WANT to do that?

I'm wondering if shame could be useful here - shaming the individual who harbors the prejudice in contradiction to community standards, or else shaming the community by illustrating how their standards are harmful to its members and destructive to the community? Then again, some people say that shame doesn't work, so who knows. Whatever. He should just shut up about this issue.

[NMMNG]

3. Oh puke

There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community.


Would he say there are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their black brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community? Their Hispanic brothers and sisters? Their Christian brothers and sisters?


Why is bigotry toward LGBT people always given a pass?

[Glorfindel]

4. Votes - there are more bigots (yes, BIGOTS) than there are LGBT

people. Those who don't want to kill us want us to slink back into the closet, keep our mouths shut, and pay taxes. I don't expect the situation to change in my lifetime.

[NMMNG]

6. Sad but true

Just as the atheists were tossed aside in favor of the religious vote, so too the LGBTs were tossed aside in favor of the bigot vote.

[democratsin08]

29. obama needs to zip the lip

and let his wife do the talking

[riqster]

5. I betcha there were "good and decent people"

...who didn't "fully embrace" their Jewish, Gay, Gypsy and Communist brothers and sisters in Germany, back in the day.

:sarcasm:

Jesus Christ, Joebama, did no one tell you Rule One of Holes? "When you're in one, stop digging."

[avrdream]

9. That's what I was thinking:

"Shit, Obama, shut-up already. You are making it worse."

[Tellurian]

11. Get ready for Obama's revisionist history lesson

He will "tell" you what you've heard and what you already know, is not his version of what he did!

[jonnyblitz]

23. His DU supporters are good at telling us he didn't say what he

just said, like he wasn't really dissing baby boomers though some of his supporters proceeded to TRASH boomers anyways even though HE wasn't doing it himself (according to them). :crazy: :crazy:

[Tellurian]

85. To delve into their mindset is delving into fucking insanity!

[ellisonz]

124. Except nobody is talking about committing genocide against homosexuals in America.

As the grandchild of Jewish Holocaust survivors I take offense to your "sarcasm."

:eyes:

[DURHAM D]

127. Perhaps you were not around or were not paying attention

at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. That is exactly what President Reagan and supporters like Senator Helms were planning. Gather up all the queers - put them in detention camps and let them die from the plague. They deserve it because they all have and spread disease.

And just for the record - our homosexuals ancestors died by the thousands in concentration camps. We still don't know how many because they were less important. If you have a chance you should watch the film Paragraph 175.

[ellisonz]

132. I've seen Paragraph 175.

Senator Helms didn't get his way.

I said that I take personal offense since so many LGBT individuals seem to be doing the same on DU...it is just fucking stupid and insensitive to compare Obama's comments to those of the Nazi's.

[FreeState]

128. Really? I wish that were true but its not... (links)

First off GLBT people were part of the same Holocaust your Grandparents were part of.

http://www.chgs.umn.edu/educational/homosexuals.html

As for groups advocating death for gays in America - unfortunately those groups do exist:


http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/texas/txnews64.htm

"Well, we know punishing homosexuals by death would be extremely hard in today’s society," said Larry S. Kilgore, the Dallas/Ft. Worth chairman of the Constitution Party. "But we hope that we can help to drive it underground so in about twenty or thirty years, the punishment can fit the crime."


http://www.skeptictank.org/gayhate.htm

COSTA MESA--Gay and civil rights activists are angry and worried about comments made on the air by an Orange County Christian radio talk show host that homosexuality should be punishable by death

http://www.skepticfiles.org/misctext/cr.htm


EDIT:

Here is a link to a page full of quotes about GLBT people from anti-gay folk in the USA. All the quotes should sound fmiliar - its the exact same rhetoric used against Jews only repackaged towards gay people.

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html

Oh and then there's this one with a poll!

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/christian/TM2KBGC414F6CJ0B1


and thats all from the first page of a Google search.

[ellisonz]

130. Umm...do you think I'm stupid???

Those are dingbats on websites. Yes, I know that there have been hate crimes (i.e. Matthew Shepherd etc.) but the Nazi's were a tyrannical, genocidal, state level political movement that unleashed genocide across the whole of continental Europe.

It's still not the same fucking thing.

[FreeState]

134. No but your not being honest

Those are dingbats on websites. Yes, I know that there have been hate crimes (i.e. Matthew Shepherd etc.) but the Nazi's were a tyrannical, genocidal, state level political movement that unleashed genocide across the whole of continental Europe.

It's still not the same fucking thing.

No but your not being honest my very first link was to a political movement and party that wants to execute gays.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/texas/txnews64.htm

"Well, we know punishing homosexuals by death would be extremely hard in today’s society," said Larry S. Kilgore, the Dallas/Ft. Worth chairman of the Constitution Party. "But we hope that we can help to drive it underground so in about twenty or thirty years, the punishment can fit the crime."

[ellisonz]

137. I'm not being dishonest in any way...

And how many people are in that group? How many have they killed?

The mass extermination of homosexuals in the United States is not a realistic proposition. It may not be nobody but it is insignificant in American politics. Is Romney calling for it? Is Rudy calling for it? Is Huckabee calling for it? No, no, and no. It is a few idiot violent extremists. I mean really, what are you going to do about it, burn all the Bibles and arrest all these pieces of shit? Do you even want to broach the topic of the neo-Nazi's on the internet? I'm sure I could get a thousand clicks for exterminating the Jews in less than a day.

I like to think these people do not represent America.

[FreeState]

138. Your original post said no one is advocating it - now its not enough

Except nobody is talking about committing genocide against homosexuals in America.

Your original post said no one is advocating it - now its not enough people are advocating it to count?

How offensive can you be? It doesn't matter how many people are killed or hurt by hate - its all the same. To put people in groups and imply that the damage is worse because more people were killed is extremely offensive to me - we all have the same worth.

[ellisonz]

141. But it is reality...

Hence the meaning of the word genocide...

The bigots of today do not compare to the Nazi's. No major group or individual in America is arguing for extermination of homosexuals.

The comparison of Obama and McClurckin to "good Germans" is offensive to ALL victims of the Holocaust.

[FreeState]

143. No one compared them to "good Germans"

Here is all the text from the post that started this, where does it compare them to "good Germans"? It compares those Obama claims are "good and decent people" but still are anti-gay to Nazi's not Obama.

I betcha there were "good and decent people" ...who didn't "fully embrace" their Jewish, Gay, Gypsy and Communist brothers and sisters in Germany, back in the day. Jesus Christ, Joebama, did no one tell you Rule One of Holes? "When you're in one, stop digging."

[ellisonz]

148. A poster did downthread and that is the implication of the above post.

Chovexani (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-12-07 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
72. Oh goddammit Obama just STFU already

There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community

You know there were people like that in the 1930s in Germany, they were called GOod Germans and they watched the Jews, GLBT, Roma and Sinti get shipped off to die in camps.

I am SO fucking done with this assclown, he can kiss my grits.

Pretty bloody similar.

This all is about the willingness to have a dialogue with people you don't agree with.

[FreeState]

150. Where does that call Obama a Good German?

There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community

You know there were people like that in the 1930s in Germany, they were called GOod Germans and they watched the Jews, GLBT, Roma and Sinti get shipped off to die in camps.

I am SO fucking done with this assclown, he can kiss my grits.

Where does that call Obama a Good German? Its talking about the people Obama was referring to, not Obama.

And it has nothing to do with "This all is about the willingness to have a dialogue with people you don't agree with." No one had a dialogue at the concerts with a homophobe on a microphone. He preached - thats not dialogue, no other voices were heard.

[ellisonz]

151. This really does remind me of Dean and the Confederate flag flap..

It's the insinuation, silly. The object of this whole scandal has been to associate Obama with McClurckin.

Edit: I'm done with this thread.

[Bluebear]

153. It was a pleasure to put this crackpot on ignore. He's "sick of hearing about McClurkin"

And nobody in America "gives a fuck and less (sic) they have a HOMOSEXUAL in their family". What an ass.

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3710683&mesg_id=3720318

[ellisonz]

155. Iraq, healthcare, jobs is what the polling says.

[Solon]

157. Backtrack much? Look, if you don't care about GBLT people, then say so...

stop this fucking beating around the bush, its irritating.

[Bluebear]

159. Holy shit, these people are insufferable.

Thanks as always for your unconditional support, Solon.

[Solon]

160. I try, there have been a few interruptions in the past 3 weeks or so though...

cable modem died, new girl, etc. But anyways, like I said, I try to be there, even though I may have missed a few threads here and there.

ON EDIT: That reminds me, I haven't responded to your OP.

[ellisonz]

162. I just take offense to the treatment of GLBT people in the US being compared to the Holocaust...

I have no problems with GLBT people. I am not lying when I say a an immediate family member is a lesbian. I go to college with many GLBT individuals. It's not that I don't care, it's just that I'm tired of hearing Barack Obama being viciously attacked for not excluding any American. My humble belief is that a President should be able to have a civilized discussion with any American any place any time. I'm tired of politicians who are afraid to take on a tough issue in a new way. Frankly, I was rather shocked when I immediately got 3 responses to me suggesting that the treatment on the GLBT community is equivalent to "I betcha there were "good and decent people...who didn't "fully embrace" their Jewish, Gay, Gypsy and Communist brothers and sisters in Germany, back in the day." It's just not the same thing, and it's a personal offense to me to make such a comparison when Barack Obama is trying to bridge the culture war in this country.

I mean really, Obama is right, "There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community." How is it okay for a Democratic presidential candidate to just up and say I don't want your vote because you and I disagree on an issue that is personal, controversial, and emotionally charged? Hell, I don't know why Obama wanted anything to do with that clown McClurkin but I'm not going to write him off because he wants this party to be a big tent. What's hilarious to me is that I can have a bigoted Reagan loving Holocaust survivor grandfather and a lesbian mother and that they can still love eachother very much. I don't buy the politics of exclusion and really considering the history of this country I don't think Americans do either. DU is out of its mind if it thinks this is an issue that ought to define the election, and I would remind many that not a single candidate outside of Kucinich has come out for gay marraige. Dennis Kucinich is currently polling at 1% in Iowa and 5% in New Hampshire.

My problem isn't with GLBT people, my problem is with those who feed off of the present scandal and those who think they have a monopoly on being offended for as long as they can beat every last bit out of that scandal. I think your post is sympomatic of that problem, I must have a problem with GLBT people if I don't jump to the conclusion that Obama is an unrepentent bigot who will hand the country to the extreme rightwing of America? Forget that, and forget small minded people who don't look beyond their own personal interest. I care about Iraq, healthcare, jobs, education, fiscal responsibility, social security, infrastructure, the environment, veterans, and poverty more than I care about a wacko bigoted gospel preacher at a no show fundraising event.

:hide: from the mob.

[Solon]

163. The problem is that those people AREN'T good, decent, or moral, they are evil...

I don't see what's complicated about that.

[ellisonz]

164. You don't think the dichotomy of good and evil is a little simplistic in this case?

I mean, what are we all, Manicheans? Incapable of seeing that something is a little more than a dualism?

ex-gays - Donnie McClurkin - Barack Obama - the new Axis of Evil?

[Solon]

166. If they are a bigot, they are evil...

and yes I say fucking EVIL, I can't tolerate bigotry of any sort, period.

[ellisonz]

167. Good luck with that come general election time...

I hope you enjoy your next 4-8 years of Romney and Rudy!

Same-sex marriage bans winning on state ballots
11 states approve constitutional amendments to outlaw gay nuptials

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 Posted: 3:22 PM EST (2022 GMT)

(CNN) -- Six months after gay and lesbian couples won the right to marry in Massachusetts, opponents of same-sex marriage struck back Tuesday, with voters in 11 states approving constitutional amendments codifying marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.

Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah all approved anti-same-sex marriage amendments by double-digit margins.

The closest race came in Oregon, where gay rights groups concentrated much of their effort and money and thought they had the best chance of winning. Opponents of the amendment raised about $2.8 million, enough to run TV and radio ads in the Beaver State and outspend pro-amendment forces, according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Yet, in the end, the amendment passed by a margin of 57 percent to 43 percent.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/02/ballot.samesex.marriage/index.html

Good night, and good luck.

[Solon]

168. What the fuck is your point? Most Americans opposed interracial marriages until 1990...

yeah that's right, fucking 1990. They were still racist, evil, assholes for opposing it too. That's almost 30 years after miscegenation laws were overturned as unconstitutional.

[ellisonz]

169. My point is that you're calling evil a good portion of the country.

So are all the Dems except Kucinich and Gravel evil for opposing gay marriage? Why do you think they're doing that? I like to win elections...

Buh bye!

[Solon]

170. They are either evil themselves, or, at the very least, cowards and/or opportunists.

If this were the 1960s and I was calling segregationists evil(which they were), would we be having this so called debate at all?

[ellisonz]

172. Yes.

"John Kennedy was elected president in 1960 partly because of his promise to secure equal rights for black Americans. Yet, once in office, he and his brother Robert, the attorney general, sought to avoid too great an involvement in the politically divisive struggle. Violent Southern conflict about black civil rights overtook the Kennedys, forcing them to intervene on the side of the integrationists. Still, President Kennedy resisted sending strong civil rights legislation to Congress, unwilling to risk further alienating the powerful Southern conservatives blocking his domestic program."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/kennedys/peopleevents/e_civilrights.html

[Solon]

173. JFK was a coward on the issue, at least early in his administration...

Robert Kennedy seemed to have wised up about that and the Vietnam war by the time he ran in the primary.

What's your agenda for bringing up this bullshit? Everyone knows about it. What, you think JFK is sometype of hero to me? He doesn't mean Jack Shit to me, and that's the truth, I have few heroes, and none that are politicians.

[ellisonz]

174. Just saying that reasonable people can disagree reasonably...

...and you don't need to call what is probably a majority of the country evil. If ideological purity was demanded 100% of the time nothing would get done.

[Solon]

175. This has nothing, NOTHING, to do with "ideological purity", it has to do with what is RIGHT!

Goddammit to fucking hell, don't you get it yet, these fucking HOMOPHOBES are against the very basic idea that homosexuals exist, and want to discriminate against them! That's WRONG and that's EVIL, period. I frankly DO think that most of the nation is evil, why the fuck should I think otherwise?

[Bluebear]

145. "No major group or individual in America...." -- SHAME on you.

So now it's not enough for you? You began by saying nobody, now it's not enough. you don't think "Reverend" Phelps is a major enough personality?


Shame on you.

[ellisonz]

147. I think Phelps is an irrelevent jackass who just lost a major lawsuit.

It still ain't the same thing as Hitler.

[Bluebear]

129. Be glad your Jewish relatives survived the holocaust for you to take such offense over.

Countless homosexuals died in the same holocaust.

And if you think "nobody" is talking about genocide against homosexuals in America, I suggest you spend some time examining some of the anti-gay hate sites.

[ellisonz]

131. Nobody but a bunch of irrelevent wingnuts...

There is a big fucking difference between the Nazi's and bigots in present America both in rhetoric and action. When West Hollywood is bombed, invaded, and liquidated you'd have an argument! But otherwise, the above post is an insult to ALL victims of the Holocaust.

[Bluebear]

133. I didn't look at the above post, I looked at yours. An AIDS clinic was shot at yesterday in Dallas

Gunman Shoots Up Dallas AIDS Agency with High-Powered Rifle

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2275872

Many gay bars have been firebombed.

The "irrelevant wingnuts" you describe include the murderers of Matt Shepard.

Saying "nobody" advocates the elimination of gays in America is not accurate.

[ellisonz]

135. Well then maybe you should since that was what I was responding too...

"riqster (688 posts) Mon Nov-12-07 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
5. I betcha there were "good and decent people"

...who didn't "fully embrace" their Jewish, Gay, Gypsy and Communist brothers and sisters in Germany, back in the day.

Jesus Christ, Joebama, did no one tell you Rule One of Holes? "When you're in one, stop digging."

And since you want to nitpick do you want me to compare the statistics on the death of German homosexuals in the Holocaust compared to those of Jews (or Roma)...and I would note that the Nazi's did treat the two groups differently in statute. The government of the United States does not practice mass extermination of homosexuals and most likely never will.

I hope the above thug is arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent and he likely will be.

I think you need to accept that the above is offensive and that I was correct to call it out.

[Bluebear]

136. Of course there were people who didn't embrace Jews, gays, etc...

Where is the offense in that statement?

======

As to comparing the statistics on the death of homosexuals vs Jews vs Roma, I personally wouldn't even fathom to compare numbers, as EACH group's statistics is tragic. When I went to Dachau, I remembered ALL those murdered, regardless of number.

[ellisonz]

139. Because the implication is that Barack Obama and McClurckin are somehow similar to Nazi's...

And by the way, don't tell me I should be grateful that my grandparents survived, most of their family didn't, including my grandfather's 4 sisters.

Well since you don't want to fathom that event but you want me to fathom a wacko shooting an AIDs clinic I'll just give you my point: Jews 90% of the 350,000 Jews of Poland - less than 20,000 homosexuals died in concentration camps.

Comparisons between today and Nazi Germany have no place even sarcastically in this discussion. The bigots of today are not "good Germans."

[Bluebear]

142. So 20,000 dead homosexuals is not "as" tragic because the number isn't big enough?

And, by the way, my mother and grandmother hid Jews in Hamburg, so I can fathom plenty.

Your statement that "less than 20,000 homosexuals died in concentration camps" and therefore somehow "less" in scope than the murder of Jews and Roma is just disgraceful.

[ellisonz]

149. Not what I said!

All I'm saying is that the laundry list used above doesn't accurately represent what Nazi Germany was about. Either way, the comment is disgraceful and the Holocaust has no comparison in any way to what Obama is saying. There is a difference between persecution and genocide...

Frankly, I'm sick to death of McClurckin this and McClurckin that because the truth is that most of America really doesn't give a fuck, and less an immediate member of family is a homosexual.

[Bluebear]

152. At last you show your true colors, Mr Obama apologist.

'I'm sick to death of McClurckin this and McClurckin that because the truth is that most of America really doesn't give a fuck and less an immediate member of family is a homosexual.'

And PS, you just can't force yourself to type "gay" can you? No, it's "homossssssexual". Because it's all about sex, isn't it?

Best of luck to you and your candidate, we won't be running into each other at DU again.

[ellisonz]

154. Umm...maybe the term describes both gay men and lesbian women?

Way to make an ASS-UMP-TION.

[ellisonz]

158. Congratulations on being the first person on my ignore list of the campaign season...

What a sanctimonious hypocrite!

"Only I'm allowed to be offended"

[ellacott]

7. I doubt the way to deal with it is to shame them into submission

They probably think they are shaming GLBT into submission also.

[NMMNG]

12. They've been shaming GLBTs into submission for centuries

They've even been shaming them into death. It's time for it to stop.

[ellacott]

14. That doesn't mean it's right

Of course it's time to stop but trying to shame them into stopping is not going to be very effective.

[NMMNG]

27. I wouldn't suggest shaming them into it

I prefer simply telling them it's inappropriate and unacceptable, just like bigotry against anybody else.

[ellacott]

53. I agree with you n/t

[yardwork]

46. I disagree, actually. Shame is a very effective deterrent to bigotry.

People hold bigoted views precisely because they get away with them and are even reinforced in their beliefs. Take away the acceptance of bigotry, and it's amazing how fast people will change their views.

It used to be ok in this country to be bigoted against black people. It's not acceptable any more in decent company. And that's why it isn't done any more in decent company. Further, it's now illegal. The shame came first. Then the laws got changed.

[ellacott]

52. I don't agree n/t

[riqster]

15. If it was gonna work, it would have done so by now.

You can't shame DNA into changing.

[NMMNG]

26. You can't actually make a gay person straight

Which is why the "ex-gay" movement is a pure scam. But you can shame a gay person into repressing his/her true self, hiding his/her sexual activity to avoid further recrimination (real or perceived), and even harming him/herself because s/he finds it impossible to change yet unbearable to deal with the repercussions of not doing so. Such is the heinousness of bigotry.

[riqster]

83. Basic nature is what I meant

...but I neglected the forcible closeting you describe, the societal element.

Of course you cannot make a gay person straight, any more than the opposite. That was what I meant by DNA. Sorry if I sounded flippant, I didn't mean to.

[incapsulated]

86. Actually, that is exactly the attitude Ghandi and MLK

Had through non-violent protest. To shame people into admitting their own prejudice.

Name calling is another thing, however.

Praising bigotry isn't.

[calteacherguy]

8. He's right. There is good and bad in all of us.

We have to reach for the good.

[closeupready]

10. What topic are you responding to???

I'm confused. Most of us are responding to his statement that you can be good, decent and moral and still reject your gay and lesbian family.

You think he's correct on that? Please explain.

[NMMNG]

13. Never mind him

He worships at the altar of Obama and has nothing to contribute to any thread except to spew adoration for Obama.

[closeupready]

18. And you know what, as I sit and reflect upon what he's writing there,

I am so disgusted with him, and no candidate yet has made me feel disgust, but this quote really seals it.

How can he write such a thing??? :mad: :mad: What a major disappointment he's become.

[NMMNG]

30. I was frustrated when he began pandering to the evangelicals

Because I saw minority religions and the non-religious being thrust aside.

I got disgusted when he embarked on the homophobe tour, and furious when he refused to stop it despite protests. Now I'm plain fed up with his continued attempts to defend his deplorable actions, which are only digging a deeper hole for him.

[calteacherguy]

89. What is it you disagree with about what Obama said? nt

[closeupready]

97. That someone can be unprepared to share their community with a gay or lesbian brother or sister, and

still be described as any of "good", "decent" or "moral".

[Bluebear]

165. Don't bother with him.

If Obama gets up and takes a dump on stage that poster will comment how nice the color is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. He Used To Be For Hillary

As I supporter of Hillary I am glad he's for Obama...What amazes me is the zealous advocacy he has engaged in for both of them...His talent is wasted as a teacher...He should have been a lawyer...

[calteacherguy]

90. LOL. nt

[TAZller]

39. "do not yet embrace" is not = rejecting...

I would offer my own parents as those people he is hopefuly refering to. They are good, decent and moral people that do not yet fully embrace us gays... they just don't get where they are lacking here....it is a process that is helped along by witnessing how others outside their own personal experience embrace us that helps in their progress. It is their goodness and decency and morality that gives me confidence in his word "yet"...but it is putting words in O's mouth to say he ascribes those qualities to someone steeped in rejection and condemnation.

[calteacherguy]

91. Exactly. Thank for your personal insight! nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

121. "embrace" is a red-herring... a weasel-word

If Obama had said, "do not support the legal equity of..." it would be a meaningful statement.

"Embrace" is just some BS... like most things he says, it is designed to be interpreted selectively by different audiences.

[Bluebear]

60. Don't bother. He has a random bromide generator he uses on any Obama thread.

[IndianaJones]

35. ebony and ivory...live together in perfect harmony...side by side...

on my piano keyboard...oh lord...why can't we?

[yardwork]

47. So what?

[Clintonista2]

87. It's never a true McClurkin thread unless

CalGuy is in it defending him!

[calteacherguy]

92. I've never defended McClurkin. nt

[Clintonista2]

101. Of course you are

Not directly, but you are.

[Bluebear]

122. Oh that's rich!

:rofl:

[DURHAM D]

125. Totally !

:toast:

[CyberPieHole]

16. Kick and recommend for civil rights for ALL! Including the GLBT community. n/t

[ecstatic]

17. At least he's trying to talk about it. The other candidates are silent

and I believe it's because they know how easily their good-intentioned words can be twisted into something sinister.

[riqster]

20. He's green

...and a fundagelical and a dipshit. Not a whole lot of twisting is required.

[AtomicKitten]

22. Obama is none of those things.

But thanks for lowering the bar, again.

[riqster]

24. I'd say he's all of them. Here's why:

GREEN: He is inexperienced. Look at his resume. Short.

FUNDAGELICAL: Look at his associates and listen to him whenever anything remotely Biblical comes up. He goes with Fave Fundie quotes.

DIPSHIT: He got into trouble with the 'Ex-Gay' business and has learned nothing from the backlash.

I think he has a lot of potential, but he is not ready for the Oval Office.

[sampsonblk]

31. "Fundagelical" what a hoot!

There's my new word for the day. I am going to use it!

FYI: I don't think you can listen to a few Obama quotes and decide that he is a fundie, or anything close. That only works in the mind of an atheist who just doesn't understand.

Churches (esp black churches) are full of people who know all the quotes and are not considered faithful. It takes a lot more than knowing the right quotes and hanging with a well-known crowd.

FYI2: A sad note about politicians. Obama's rebuke of the gay community was very public. Until he reverses it, with the same amount of effort and publicity, then I call BS. Politicians use this trick all the times.

FYI3: This gay "gaffe" has not hurt Obama's numbers at all.

[riqster]

88. Good points

FYI: Fundagelicals are no more or less faithful than any other type or religious critter. And I take exception to the 'especially black churches' statement. You ain't seen hypocrisy like comes from an Appalachian Methodist lay preacher. Trust me, I sang in choir behind one of them, and had to quite after a few months, I got nauseated. Two-faced peeps come from all over, and no race has a monopoly, or even a plurality.

I may have incorrectly tagged Obama with the label 'Fundagelical', but just as one can tell a Catholic by their views on transubstantiation or a Presbyterian by predestination, there are certain behaviors, quotations and statements that provide indicators of many theological schools. Certainly he is sticking to the Fundie script in this case, albeit a kinder-seeming page thereof.

FYI2: Agreed, it's standard practice in politics. The thing that makes me so angry is the use of an oppressed community to score votes. That's below the belt.

FYI3:That's why he hasn't changed. He has gotten what he wants, and to hell with those 'other' people. :puke:

[AtomicKitten]

34. rebuttal

Obama was in the Illinois State Senate for years before being elected to the US Senate. He has held public office longer than any of the front-runners.

Obama is not a fundie. He is reaching out to an untapped voting block of people of faith. It appears only militant atheists think that is a bad thing.

Obama didn't ask "how high?" when some in the LGBT community told him to jump. He offered and executed a compromise that was deemed unsatisfactory by some. What he also did was proved his integrity in standing by his convictions.

Obama has a long and distinguished history of consistently supporting the expansion of civil liberties for all Americans. The only problem that exists is with a handful of people (relatively) deciding this election is only about them, and their remedy has always been don't vote for him. Instead they choose to wage an internets jihad.

Obama has done and will continue to do fine.

[dsc]

36. No he didn't he repeatedly lied

He lied when he stated this man would only sing. He lied when he stated that Obama would have no presense at the concert. He lied on MTV the day after when he stated the man only sang and didn't talk. That isn't compromise that is lying.

[AtomicKitten]

38. Obama sponsored the concert - period.

He hasn't equivocated at all about this issue, before or after, much to the chagrin of some.

I think you are confusing blog-chatter for actual factual information.

On edit: To prove my point, someone here at DU actually claimed to have seen Obama on stage at the concert ... Obama wasn't there.

It is viral the way sh*t people just make up spreads on the internets.

[dsc]

41. He appeared there by video

and stated "McClurkin is my favorite singer". His campaign told me directly the man would only sing. I was told this not once, not twice, but three seperate times. Finally I watched the MTV interview myself. And the first question was about this very event and he directly lied. He claimed that McClurkin only sang which we all knew wasn't true.

[AtomicKitten]

42. your remedy has always been not voting for him

[dsc]

43. don't worry I won't

but I also won't allow his supporters to tell us stories. On edit, I also won't allow you to tell people that I don't know what I am talking about. The fact is I did my research. I read the news stories. I posted at Obama's campaign and directly asked. I watched the MTV interview. I didn't just go to blogs and I won't let you claim I did.

[AtomicKitten]

45. Blog-chatter is often wrong and almost always inflammatory.

I would say those are the real "stories" being told.

To each his own.

[dsc]

48. again I read the NYT

which is where the video comes from. I posted at his own site where I was directly told the man would only sing. I watched, with my own eyes, Obama directly lie about what happened. This isn't just blog stories.

[AtomicKitten]

55. I've reviewed all the data I could get my hands on ... and we disagree.

That happens.

However, calling the candidates, any of the candidates (or DU'ers for that matter) names is incendiary, and it is that kind of scorched earth rhetoric that makes it difficult to have a conversation that includes anything more than lobbing nasty epithets at each other.

So, we will have to agree to disagree on this.

[dsc]

56. I didn't call names

but I won't let supporters of Obama claim I did one thing when I did a different thing. I have repeatedly supplied links to back this up.

[AtomicKitten]

59. you called him liar in this thread

Look, we have a different view of this, and so, like I said, we will have to agree to disagree.

In my opinion, we are all traumatized victims of the last 7 years. I don't begrudge you your opinion (just the name-calling), and I hope you can find room in your sphere of consciousness for people that strongly disagree with your strongly held opinion.

Peace.

[dsc]

63. I didn't call him a liar

I said he lied. There is no other interpretation of the facts. He went on MTV the next day and directly said the man only sang. That was a lie. We know the man MCed the event and we know he spent over 20 minutes testifying about how God cured him of being gay and stating that gays were unfairly targetting him. If that isn't lying I don't know what is.

[AtomicKitten]

67. same difference ;)

It is astounding that you actually think he's be dumb enough to lie. I can assure you Obama is, in fact, not a "dipshit" as he was called upthread.

You immediately jumped from point A to point C because you assume he's lying. Did it occur to you that Obama was merely sponsoring the event, was, in fact, not hands-on, and was relaying what he was told about the venue, line-up, etc?

With plenty of mitigating points to mull over, you choose to deprive him of the benefit of the doubt, which is most certainly your prerogative, but I hope you can at least acknowledge there are other valid and perfectly legitimate ways to view this.

[dsc]

68. I knew it was a lie not because I was at the event

but because I read new accounts of the event. Unlike, Obama, who had people there I had to rely upon the NYT for my info. He merely had to ask his own campaign workers. There is no way he didn't know.

[Solon]

156. So instead of being a liar, Obama is incompetent?

How is that any better, not to mention he screwed the pooch when it comes to the aftermath.

[sampsonblk]

49. Rebuttal of your rebuttal (minor point)

The black evangelical vote isn't untapped at all. Just the opposite. That community is the center of politics in black America. Rev Jesse Jackson. Rev Al Sharpton. Rev Dr Martin Luther King.

A candidate who wants the black vote is going to have to go to church. Obama was losign blacks to Hillary Clinton. So he did the wise thing. Problem is, he jumped in with both feet instead of just one.

[AtomicKitten]

57. Truthfully, I don't begrudge any of the candidates going for the win.

That's what this is all about, with a huge, nasty battle ahead with the GOP.

As long as there is a Democrat in the White House on 1/20/09, I will be one happy camper.

[riqster]

94. My response

There's public office, and then there's the Presidency. A stint in the minors and then a couple years in the majors might be sufficient for a fats learner, but he keeps putting his foot in it, over and over. He needs more time in DC.

He is reaching out to a group of 'faithful' homophobes, and validating their homophobia by turning his back on the GBLT community. Nobody'd mind if he were reaching in both directions at once, but he's focusing on the haters. Just because a bigot goes to church does not decrease their bigotry.

And I am not a militant (or any sort of) atheist. It's a bad thing becasue he is exacerbating divisions instead of healing them, not because I or any other person hates religion.

If his convictions are indeed indicated by his constancy in fanning the flames of anti-gay hatred, then the same logic, Bush is man of integrity as well. If one's beliefs are abhorrent, consistency is not a good thing.

[jonnyblitz]

25. You're just a one trick pony, Bluebear. Nobody cares about this.

:sarcasm:

[Bluebear]

66. :)

[dsc]

32. I'll try to be fair here

On one level I know bigots can be otherwise good people. All of us have had sexist, racist, or otherwise bigotted relatives who we understood often had good qualities. But would we really call them moral? Would we call people who felt blacks were inferior moral? Would we call people who felt women should be paid less, moral? Would we call those who feel Hispanics were lazy, moral? Honestly, the man keeps digging a deeper and deeper hole.

[rucky]

44. everybody thinks they're moral.

the word doesn't carry as much power as you give it credit for. Correction - it carries lots of power, but not much meaning. Obama wasn't very clear on the matter, partially because he used a charged word like "moral." But the heart of what he's saying is a good message overall.

[geek tragedy]

33. I support Obama, but that was terribly tone deaf.

"I'm sorry." Just say it already.

[Bluebear]

61. And I wholly respect and thank you for your reaction.

[rucky]

37. He's right.

Does anybody have a parent or grandparent who you love, but still throws out bigoted comments every now and then? You wouldn't write them off. My Dad did it all the time I was growing up - gays, Blacks, Mexicans. He's a good guy and treats people fairly, but he had some serious misconceptions. Over the years my brothers and I have pretty much brought him up to speed on prejudice by non-judgementally telling him why it's wrong for him to say/think that way.

It's not just with family members. Several times I've confronted antisemetism, racism and homophobia in a non-judgemental and informative way and am pretty darn sure most of those people left the conversation with at least a different viewpoint to mull over. I don't think anybody would ever get that far if they express outrage or called that person a bigot. Emotionally-charged arguements are really easy to write off. Do you listen to people who call you names? Do you expect everybody to naturally have the same level of sensitivity that you do? Especially when there are so many institutions out there who preach hatred, depending on your environment, that could just be somebody's frame of reference. They've never met an openly gay person, but they've heard about them in not-so-flattering lights. Telling someone like that to screw themselves will just reinforce their prejudices.

Bigotry hurts, but if you want to end it, we need open and respectful dialogue. Even if there's not agreement on the issue, the respect will still be there - and that may carry over in their overall view of the minority population.

[yardwork]

50. That's beside the point. Nobody is advocating that we beat up homophobic bigots.

We're asking presidential candidates not to showcase homophobic bigots and provide a platform for their bigoted, harmful rants.

[rucky]

51. Let's give him a chance to get out of the box gracefully.

Lord knows he's trying. If he denounces the black churches any more directly, he'll lose their support. If he doesn't, he loses the GLBT support. Yep, he screwed himself pretty nicely. But he really deserves a shot at following through with this latest message - even though it was invented after the fact, it's still worthwhile to try to bring GLBT activists to the table with Black church leaders and see what happens.

[yardwork]

69. If that is his intention, where are the actions to match?

I don't see Obama attempting to bring together black church leaders and GLBT people (not just "activists" - whoever they are).

Obama's supporters keep saying that he plans to bring the two sides together, but he hasn't. He hasn't made one single move toward doing so.

Instead, Obama gave a high-visibility platform to an egregiously bigoted, closeted, wrong-headed, harmful proponent of the worst kind of bigotry against queer people - a bigotry that not only says that we are evil, murderers, bad for children (these are all direct quotes from McClurkin and his fellow anti-gay singers) but that we CAN be saved if we're only WILLING to be saved. In essence, McClurkin calls his fellow queer human beings murderers who have the option to be saved from being murderers but choose to continue murdering.

How do you think that makes us queer people feel?



And where is Obama in all this? Introducing Donnie McClurkin as his "favorite singer" by video, appointing him emcee of a major campaign event, allowing him a half hour to spew his misguided hatred.

Where's the other side?

[dsc]

71. well said

I remember so many long nights as a teen wondering if I would ever be worthy of God curing me. Every accomplishment I made back then I dedicated to God in hopes I would be cured. Needless to say it didn't work.

[yardwork]

73. ...and thank God and the Goddess for that, dsc! You are beautiful just the way God made you.

We are all beautiful in God's eyes, and just the way God made us.

Anyone who disagrees can go read the New Testament and brush up on what Jesus had to say about hypocrisy.

[dsc]

75. I know that now

back then I was so desperate for change. That is what is so insidiuous about this ex gay crap. We internalize it and blame ourselves when it doesn't work.

[rucky]

76. I hope he follows through.

And takes the shrinking window of opportunity he has to clear the air on a very tense issue. If not, then he's proven that his "politics of hope" is just talk.

I hope you don't think I'm making light of his colossal blunder. I just know that the mess he's created is somewhat recoverable if he can truly build a bridge and get through to the Black churches the way he says he can.

[IndianaJones]

40. good, decent, moral bigots. welcome to America. nt.

[mtnsnake]

54. As someone who is straight & pro-Obama, I find his rhetoric on this deplorable

There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community. We will not secure full equality for all GLBT Americans until we learn how to address that deep disagreement and move beyond it.

Sorry, Barack, but in the name of decency, you just cannot compromise with intolerant bigots as your above quote suggests you want to do. You're just trying to have it both ways, and you can't. Sometimes there is no in-between, so make a choice, either go all the way for tolerance or not at all. Pick one or the other for once in your life. You're really disappointing us more and more.

"…I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples – whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."

So if a bunch of states decide against civil unions, that would be fine with you, as long as the federal government doesn't interfere with them. So basically, you don't give a rats ass one way or the other. If the states want it, it's fine, if they don't it's fine. Do you ever go out on a limb and pick a definitive position, Senator?

[Bluebear]

62. Bravo, mtnsnake.

[yardwork]

74. Thank you very much for taking this principled stand!

I was an Obama supporter before all this, too. Very disappointed in him.

[AtomicKitten]

77. Only Kucinich will deliver what you are berating Obama about.

And I think you know that.

And, please, don't muddy the waters by claiming to be an Obama supporter to somehow frame your diss as being pristine in intent.

How do I know that? You echo the Goddess of Peace's (as you call her) talking points. Just yesterday, you slammed Obama over Russert's clipped quotes here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3707318

Zulchzulu eloquently dispelled Russert's hatchet job here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3709254

People at DU are glomming onto issues that hurt candidates they want hurt, and I have no problem with you doing that, but please don't pretend to do it it under the guise of being an Obama supporter because you have proven that that is not the case.

[mtnsnake]

78. I don't need anyone telling me who I like or don't like

FYI, I've been high on Obama, Hillary, and Kucinich all along...as of late, mostly on Kucinich, although I still like the other two, along with Biden. So it's just too bad if you don't like it that I can admit I'm disappointed in certain aspects of candidates, even if I like them. If you think Obama is being fair with his remarks about gays, then so be it, agree or disagree, but don't be telling me I'm disguising myself as someone's fan just because I don't think they're perfect.

Obama's quotes in this thread are just what I said, deplorable. Let me add embarrassing.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[jenmito]

58. You catch more bees with honey than vinegar. He has a strong voting record on gay rights

and if he's president maybe he can change some hearts and minds.

[AtomicKitten]

64. Obama has also gone into black churches and admonished them

about preaching homophobia. He is the only candidate that has addressed this issue head-on. I would think that matters.

[jenmito]

65. Yup. He actually speaks the truth to those who NEED to hear it...

rather than preaching to the choir. THAT'S what we need.

[yardwork]

70. Do you have a link and a video or transcript of Obama admonishing a congregation about homophobia?

[NMMNG]

81. .......

[BeyondGeography]

100. He talked about homophobia in connection with AIDS testing at the Howard debate

==One of the things we've got to overcome is a stigma that still exists in our communities. We don't talk about HIV/AIDS. We don't talk about it in the schools. Sometimes we don't talk about it in the churches. It has been an aspect of sometimes homophobia that we don't address this issue as clearly as it needs to be.==
Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University Jun 28, 2007

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2007_Dems_Howard_U_Health_Care.htm

Not exactly what you asked for, but I'd like to see a link that has any of our candidates talking about homophobia in the black community. Obama has numerous times. One could say that he alone is able to do this without paying an enormous political price becuase he is of the community, but at least he has the guts to speak out.

[yardwork]

113. This is not the documentation I requested to support the assertions being made.

It's good that Obama discussed this during one of the debates.

I have yet to see any documentation of the oft-repeated claim here that Obama is going into black churches and taking them to task for homophobia.

[Chovexani]

72. Oh goddammit Obama just STFU already

There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community

You know there were people like that in the 1930s in Germany, they were called GOod Germans and they watched the Jews, GLBT, Roma and Sinti get shipped off to die in camps.

I am SO fucking done with this assclown, he can kiss my grits. :puke:

[Beacool]

80. I'm from New Jersey,

right across the river from Manhattan to be precise and I have a vast group of gay friends. Some are even somewhat conservative, but they have all told me that the candidate who they are more comfortable with is Hillary. The Clintons have always been inclusive.

I remember Neel Lattimore (Hillary's former press secretary when she was First Lady) talking about his days in the White House. He said that one day he went to Hillary and told her that he was gay and that he didn't want to cause any embarrassment to the president. She responded that it was his private life and it didn't matter to them. He also said something funny. She always tried to play matchmaker to her staff, including him, and on occasions she would tell him that so and so was unattached. He still speaks highly of both Clintons.

[riqster]

82. I cannot support anyone who acts as an apologist for hatred and bigotry

Obama is trying to get everyone to stop fighting: the aggressors AND their targets. Doesn't work, because of the inherent unfairness of his solution, which is to make nice (or at least appear to) with the haters and the hated. It is an inherently unjust action on his part, and in the long term solves nothing. Those who discriminate will continue to discriminate, and the objects of their acts will continue to seethe. All he's going to do is screw the lid on the jar more tightly, and the explosion will be the more terrible when it finally occurs. And occur it will, because the GLBT community won't take this kind of horseshit forever.

A REAL solution from a more mature and qualified candidate would be one that focuses on acknowledging the crimes of past and present; acknowledging the prejudice that exists today; educating the parties involved; and thus showing all sides that he is truly committed to justice for all.

You know, like Dr. Martin Luther King did it. He didn't kiss the KKK's asses, nor did he kick them. He dealt with them in a straightforward manner, not by pandering to them. Gandhi treated the Brits the same way. Look at what straightforward, intelligent, reasoned, and morally coherent actions can do, and then compare Obama's to theirs.

He's out of his league, making it worse instead of better. He is not ready for this job.

My impression of Obama is: a good man who is out of his depth, flailing around and kicking the other swimmers, instead of allowing a lifeguard to pull him out of the pool until he has learned to swim properly.

[Josiah1982]

93. I don't like the whole religio-politico thing Obama is working.

I think we got enough of that blurring of the separation of church and state with bush. We don't need churches telling the government how to run the country.

[Bluebear]

98. Josiah, welcome to DU!

[Josiah1982]

119. Hi Bluebear.

:hi:

[Maven]

96. So, in essence, in his latest statement, HE ACTUALLY COMPLIMENTS THE BIGOTS

by calling them "good and moral," thus reinforcing the disgusting lie that you can hate gay people on "moral" grounds, and without any apology or regret expressed to GLBT people!

FUCKOBAMA!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

99. Flattery

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3711505

[ripple]

102. Will ANY candidate say that those who oppose gay marriage

are IMMORAL? Including your own candidate?

Edwards opposes gay marriage. What does that make him?

[riqster]

104. DK's my guy

And thus far, he's not crapping on the GBLT community at least.

On edit-let's try this link thingiemadoobob again:From Lesbian Life


Employment Non-Discrimination: Kucinich supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. He was a sponsor of the original ENDA.

Gender Identity Employment: Kucinich supports a Federal Bill that would outlaw workplace discrimination based on gender identity and expression.

Hate Crimes: Kucinich supports the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the Federal Hate Crimes Law. He was a co-sponsor of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bill that amends the Federal criminal code to set penalties for persons who willfully injure a person because of their sexual orientation.

Same-Sex Marriage: Kucinich is the only candidate who supports same-sex marriage. On his campaign website he says, "I believe that equality of opportunity should be afforded to all Americans regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. For that reason I support the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons to have the full protections and rights afforded under civil law including the right to marry the person of their choice."

Family Medical Leave: Kucinich supports extending the Family Medical Leave Act to same-sex couples.

Same-Sex Immigration: Kucinich is a co-sponsor of the Permanent Partners Act (H.R. 832) which would allow American citizens to sponsor their same-sex partners for immigration into the country.

Gay and Lesbian Adoption: Kucinich supports giving gays and lesbians the same rights to adoptions as heterosexuals.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Kucinich supports the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which would allow gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly in the military.

Looks pretty good, at least to this straight male. In your FACE, wimpy "frontrunners"!

[ellisonz]

144. *crickets*

[Seabiscuit]

103. WTF is "good, decent" or "moral" about excluding anyone from "our shared community" on the

basis of sexual orientation or any other classification???

Oh, man, Obama really blew it with that line.

Tread lightly, Barack, before someone uses your quote to justify saying that there are good, decent, moral people who are not ready to embrace black folk in our shared community.

[David Zephyr]

105. WTF? Get a clue: "good, decent, moral people" are not bigots.

His comments are demeaning and only reveal what a calculating politician he is.

Thank goodness for the primaries because I've seen enough of him to know that it's not that he's "green" or "young". He just blatantly ambitious.

And I wish he'd shut the fuck up talking about my brothers and sisters.

[FredScuttle]

106. Here's one of Obama's "good, decent, moral" homophobes:

Anyone want to reach out to him?

[FredScuttle]

107. Can we all now agree that Obama welcomes bigots into his campaign

Any Democrat who calls bigots "good, moral, decent" should be drummed right out of the party. Is this clown-coddling fool forgetting the blood shed for him and us by truly "good, moral, decent" people in the 50's and 60's (and before....and since) to defend basic civil rights in this country?

Is he fucking kidding?

[sniffa]

109. but how can you change them without welcoming them

and their votes/money into his campaign?

[ellisonz]

126. And you have a Howard Dean avatar!

“I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats.”

"The issue of the confederate flag has become an issue in this presidential race. Let me make this clear. I believe that we have one flag in this country, the flag of the United States of America. I believe that the flag of the Confederate States of America is a painful symbol and reminder of racial injustice and slavery, which Lincoln denounced from here over 150 years ago. And I do not condone the use of the flag of the Confederate States of America. I do believe that this country needs to engage in a serious discussion about race, and that everyone must participate in that discussion. I started this discussion in a clumsy way.

"This discussion will be painful, and I regret the pain that I may have caused either to African-American or southern white voters in the beginning of this discussion. But we need to have this discussion in an honest open way.

------

"I understand Senator Edward's concern last night that we not have people from the north telling people from the south how to run their states--but we all need to understand that we are in this together and that it will be a difficult and painful discussion, and feelings will be hurt. And what we must do is that people of good will must stay at the table.

"If we are ever to vanquish the scourge of racism left over from 400 hundred years of slavery and Jim Crow, only 40 or 50 years ago the Civil Rights Movement begin to see relief from that. We can't think it is over; we must have the dialogue Bill Clinton promised us; we must continue that dialogue, and we must all be at the table. Many of the people in the African American community have supported what I have said in the past few days, because they understand. Some have not, so I say, to those, I deeply regret the pain I have may caused. Many of our white supporters have understood, but to those who do not, I regret the pain that I have caused. I will tell you, there is no easy way to do this. There will be pain as we discuss it; we must face it together--hand-in-hand, as Dr. King and Abraham Lincoln asked us to do.

"Because this is about taking back our country and when white people and brown people and black people vote together in this country, that's when we get social justice in America."

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Transcript_of_Confed_Flag_Remarks_at_Coopers_Union_Nov5_2003.htm

But maybe you disagree with Howard?

[FredScuttle]

178. I didn't disagree with Howard and you're making a painfully weak and inaccurate comparison

Dean was saying that white Southerners who have been reliably voting Republican for 40 years are voting against their self-interest. He was saying that, if they want better health care, better education for their kids and better jobs, they should vote Democratic.

He didn't invite an "ex-gay" clown to headline one of his fundraisers to make his point. You're goddamn right I have a Dean avatar. I'm proud to feature a real Democrat who doesn't coddle bigots to pander for votes in a key primary state.

[mvd]

108. Sorry, Obama

"There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community."

They are not moral at all. It's bigoted. People make mistakes (I'm still a bit embarrassed at the way I argued a transgender issue - I'm not bigoted; just used the wrong words and even learned a couple things,) but this was just making the McClurkin thing worse.

[NMMNG]

112. Well said

:thumbsup:

[DrFunkenstein]

110. Edwards Is a Good Example of Such a Decent Person

There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community.

We will not secure full equality for all GLBT Americans until we learn how to address that deep disagreement and move beyond it."

Yeah, that’s totally true, but wouldn’t it just be easier to shame them into social submission? It is, after all, only fair. As for them being “moral” - sorry, babe, but we disagree. They can be good and decent, but saying gays burn in hell doesn’t qualify as “moral”. Misguided, yes, but not moral.

Of course, this is a perfect example of a regular feature of anti-Obama rhetoric around here. Namely, taking a quote of his and twisting it into unrecognizable contortions to make him look like the epitome of evil.

Obama does not say that "good, decent, moral people" think that gays should "burn in hell." That's a pretty cheap tactic.

It was not so long ago that Edwards was confiding his discomfort around gays, and there are lots of good people - including my own family - that are not comfortable with seeing the same levels of affection and sexuality between homosexuals as heterosexuals. Are they wrong? Yes, unequivocably. But that doesn't mean that they are not good and decent and moral.

The same goes for gay marriage. It is absurd to oppose it. It doesn't make me less married or love my wife less. But America is a place that is slow to give up our absurdities. But just because people have yet to fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community, doesn't mean that they are immoral and indecent and evil. They're just wrong. And we're working on that.

[NMMNG]

116. Oy

Obama does not say that "good, decent, moral people" think that gays should "burn in hell." That's a pretty cheap tactic.


But a good number of the people Obama is trying to pass off as "good, decent, moral people" do think that gays should burn in hell. Their Bible tells them so.

[FreeState]

120. Except for Obama was apparently talking about himself

He does not support full and equal marriage rights. Justify as much as he can - he still thinks he's entitled to something and I am not - which makes him a bigot to the 9th degree. It does not matter how "pro-gay" he claims to be - he does not now and has never supported true equality.

This post is about Obama, as is this thread, so before anyone comes along and says this is the stance of most of the candidates - yes most of the leading Dem candidates are bigots and we all must stand up and demand that every single one of them support full equality.

[William769]

117. Hay obama, I got something you can embrace.

It's hanging between my legs!

[Beausoir]

118. Good, decent, moral bigots! Obama...I've lost alot of respect for you.

[Lautremont]

140. I don't think Obama is gay!

There's a lot of strange evidence floating around about him, and a lot of questionable statements, but I think it's a stretch to say that he himself is actually gay. He doesn't strike me as particularly gay-friendly, even, and that's not too good in a presidential candidate.

[Bluebear]

146. Oh please do us a favor and read the post.

:)

[Solon]

161. There is nothing "good", "decent" or "moral" about being a bigot.

I simply do not understand this, at all. Bigotry, in all its forms, is an Evil, with a capital "E", you cannot be a good or moral person and hold onto bigoted beliefs, they are incompatible.

[denem]

171. Doesn't ex-gay mean ex gay boyfriend?

[Bluebear]

176. Come again?

[FreeState]

177. No, it means someone really believes there blue eyes are brown N/T