What is with DU?

[Puglover]

General Discussion is downright frightening with homophobia. Most of it cloaked in semantics.

Last night I started a poll. "Can you support the death penalty and be a progressive?" And well over 1/2 said yes. In hindsight I wish I would have asked. "DO you support the death penalty and consider yourself a progressive?" That is closer to what I wanted to know. Still I am astounded that on this board over 1/2 the folks that responded supported the death penalty period.

As to some of the threads and comments regarding the "homosexual agenda" Well, I just :wow: And most of these are from long time posters.

Today I do feel as if many folks on DU consider gays 2nd class citizens. It makes me sad.

[grizmaster]

1. gay rights are human rights

no compromise allowed in my eyes

[Ian David]

13. I absolutely agree with you.

I can understand how a progressive might be "homophobic," in the literal sense of the word-- afraid of gay people. I can understand it, but I don't have much patience for it.

I can more understand how younger, less worldly progressives might be homophobic. Those whose only opinions about gay people is informed by sitting with their dad watching Fox News.

However...

There is no excuse to deny someone equal rights and equal dignity, even if you, personally, are "afraid" of them.

Period.

So, for those so-called "progressives" who are "afraid" of gay people, either:

1) Put your fear and prejudice aside until you either outgrow it or overcome it, and join the fight for equal rights, equal protection, and equal dignity for all.
or
2) Stop kidding yourself about being a "Progressive." You're not.

Meanwhile, it's up to everyone to speak-up and correct people when you see it.

Silence equals consent.

[endarkenment]

2. I am having trouble with DP being a gay issue.

You seem to be randomly conflating two things here: homophobia and support for the death penalty, both of which are evidenced way too much on DU, but there is no obvious connection between them. I think you are not actually making that connection, but mushing these two issues together leads to one confusing post.

[Puglover]

6. Sorry to confuse you!

I didn't mean to make any connection at all. I guess I just consider being non homophobic and anti death penalty to be progressive values.

I didn't mean to mush.

:blush:

[Warpy]

8. You mushed, and if you're making accusations

please supply links to back them up.

Thanks.

[Puglover]

12. Sure here's a couple of threads.

Most of the really offensive posts have been deleted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2481247&mesg_id=2481247


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2479358

[Warpy]

17. "name removed" are sweet words to women, too

Thanks for the links.

[LostinVA]

18. Huge amounts of posts and even thread OPs -- scary in GD

I mean that literally: it scares me.

[Warpy]

20. Again, please post links

Otherwise, it's just one of those "everybody knows" things that people are rightly suspicious about.

[LostinVA]

21. Everybody DOES know -- but here's just a few

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2906241

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2481247

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2483831

[Warpy]

26. In the first OP you linked to, I found more sexism than homophobia

as in the "ma'am" posts. The OP called for broadening the debate beyond right wing social wedge issues, something I heartily agree with. It really is the economy. It really is the war. Let THEM yowl about the social issues. Everybody knows where we stand on 'em and we're not budging. Hitting the right where they have no defense is a better strategy than answering their stupid accusations.

The second one questioned the timing of the court decision, immediately before an election. If it had been immediately after an election, the right would have screamed bloody murder. If it had been between elections, Nervous Nellies would still be terrified it would hurt us. I did see one post pointing out it's never the "right" time to extend rights to previously disadvantaged groups, the truest post in the thread. I imagine the homophobia was in the "name deleted" thread.

The third one seemed to be a battle between people who remember that the civil rights movement led to Nixon's successful southern strategy and 37 years of conservatism from both parties who are terrified that "allowing" gays and uppity women to continue to fight for their basic human rights will hurt the party for as long, and folks like me who think it's never politically expedient to abandon anyone's rights. It's the age old argument of ends and means and trying to justify the latter by the former. In other words, I didn't see homophobia there, just fear and fuzzy thinking. They'd love to campaign on gay and women's rights but they're afraid of losing.

As infuriating as it is to read posts from people who are so focused on winning elections that they have forgotten what we're supposed to be doing when we get into power, they're not specifically homophobic or sexist. They're just WRONG, they're just CONSERVATIVE, and it's far better to answer them on that level than to moan about either homophobia or sexism, neither of which is the point.

Thanks for the links, I'd missed them earlier.

[Puglover]

28. Warpy

with respect. I'm not moaning. Nor is LostinVa. You didn't see the posts(now deleted) that said.

"Being gay is something I would hardly promote."

Along with some blather about men and women being the ONLY way to procreate and there was nothing that we could do to refute that. Huh?

And worse.

Although diverse DU should be a safe place from crap like that. I guess one could argue that it is in fact safe because the most offensive posts were deleted but they are hurtful nonetheless.

I'm not sure of your situation but if you are straight I take issue with you telling me how I should feel about something or how I handle it. I posted this in the GLTB forum specifically to get reaction and input from fellow gay DUers. Your posts are somewhat condescending and while normally I enjoy your OPs this one is somewhat offensive. I am not thin skinned. You don't grow up gay in the 60's and survive being thin of skin trust me. I KNOW we are on the same side here. But trust me, the posts that I was reading last night were about much more then someone simply being focused winning an election.

[Warpy]

29. Well, I'm not sure either of us would "promote" it, either, considering

it's something that just IS. It's kind of like promoting blond hair or ten fingers.

However, I did suspect that's where the bashing was, in the deleted replies.

As for considering my post condescending, I suggest you reread it. Looking past an initial flush of anger and realizing what the problem is can't possibly be considered condescending. It was offered in the spirit of cooperation in identifying the real problem and dealing with it on that level.

Plus, you can't grow up female in this country without recognizing some of the same issues in both communities. Homophobia and sexism are inextricably linked, IMO. Remember, they want women to shut up about sovereignty over their own bodies, too.

[Puglover]

33. I agree with you on both things.

I can't imagine "promoting" something that just is but the poster used the phrase in an ugly way.

And I totally agree with your last paragraph.

[davidinalameda]

39. plenty of sexism

try reading the Patricia Heaton thread-oh my goodness

bitch this and bitch that-blah blah

and the Candy Crowley threads-I'm not a big fan but focus on the issues and not her sex or size

disgusting

[LostinVA]

24. I did, as did Puglover

[twilight_sailing]

3. If everyone isn't free

then nobody is free.

[Ellis Wyatt]

4. gays apparantly lose their rights

when they become republican.

The only venom or "homophobia" I've seen on this board toward gays is republican gays.

[donco6]

7. I disagree somewhat.

Just try posting something along the line of, "Full, equal rights for gay persons is not open to compromise for political expediency" and see how quickly gays are thrown under the bus.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. Done

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2485839

I think the results will be interesting.

[LostinVA]

19. No, lots of long-time posters who certainly post other Dem stuff

have thrown lots of nasty stuff around the last 24 hours or so.

[sui generis]

27. I'll agree with part one

fer sure, and they deserve to lose all respect.

Part two is more subtle - it's more often ignorance and insensitivity than homophobia, but there are a few corkers.

[William769]

5. Some people call themselves progressives untill...

Well we will just leave it at that.

[xchrom]

9. homophobia is just as alive and well in the progessive community

as it is any where else.

i mean the followers of dobson don't believe they ''hate'' gay folk.

and many ''followers'' of liberal/progressive ideals don't thing they are sexist/homophobic/racist/etc.

[Jamastiene]

41. As always, you took the words right out of my mouth.

I have learned what you just said as fact over the years. You are so dead on most of the time. :thumbsup:

[xchrom]

44. thanks -- we have to pick up our

equality our selves -- and we are.

[bowens43]

10. DU, like the Democratic Party, like the USA is a diverse group.

Do you really expect all of us to agree on every subject or any subject? It's not going to happen. Not all here label themselves progressive or even liberal.

[sinkingfeeling]

14. Gays should have full rights under the law, just like anybody else.

[Tyo]

15. We're seen as a liability

And an impediment to winning elections.

[TheWraith]

16. I think you have a biased perspective.

For one thing, I haven't seen a single person here, not even the posts that get deleted, refer to the "homosexual agenda" except in mocking the righties. Perhaps you midread the context of the posts.

Second, people here have long memories, and many still resent the fact that gay marriage, particularly Newsom's stunt in San Francisco, was used as a get-out-the-vote issue by the fundies in the last election. That's not from anything against gay people, but it is why a lot of people wish that this ruling could have waited a couple more weeks. Like it or not, nothing gets done for our side without a Democratic majority. That's true for you as well as anybody else--unless you think that a Republican congress won't take steps to make sure those marriages aren't recognized--and most people here aren't willing to trade control of Congress for gay marriage in New Jersey. Like it or not, you're looking at things from behind a single-issue lens, and if you step out from behind it for a minute, you'll see that the things you're talking about are one piece of a much larger picture. You view your issue as supreme, as does any true believer, but someone else could easily argue that it's more important to stop the war, which has already killed upwards of 650,000 people. Compared to that, how important is it that gay marriage be legalized this year rather than next year?

[Nozebro]

22. Your post makes you seem more like a very conservative GOPer than a

progressive Democrat. NO, I do not expect you to even acknowledge the possibility. In reality, I "know" you're a sincere centrist, right? Just like most other DUers. Really, really.

[Puglover]

23. I would think that fact that I just might be

a teeny tiny bit biased would be obvious. Try not having basic fuckin rights that everyone else enjoys sometime pal. You might become a tad biased as well.

[ScreamingMeemie]

30. I'm sorry, but this appears to be mocking lefties...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2906241&mesg_id=2906275

[Puglover]

34. You are rad!

I KNEW I saw it Mrs Grumpy but I was damned if I could find it!

:hug:

[L A Woman]

31. I agree with TheWraith

Unfortunately, we live in a society in which the populace has the attention span and patience of a gnat. That's the core of the problem. You can't make these changes overnight. It takes patience and a soft presentation. Sure, you and I believe that gay people should have full marriage rights NOW, but you have to remember that for most people in this country, it's an enormous insult to everything they have been taught their whole lives. And guess what? They are Americans, too.

If you present this issue as "We're Here, We're Queer, We're Getting Married, Live With It," that's fine. But what you are going to get is a backlash and a Republican Congress. Simple as that.

This is a matter of being patient and smart. Everyone wants our troops home safely. Everyone wants jobs and social security and health care. Democrats need to pounce on those issues, get back in power and THEN we can start making strides in changing the laws and the way Americans think about gay men and lesbians.

This adolescent, defiant attitude is going to get us nowhere.

[Sapphocrat]

36. *sigh*

I'll try repeating this for the umpteenth time -- but only because of your avatar, which tells me you may have some vested interest in the matter.

The LGBT community as a whole was not pushing for across-the-board, federal marriage equality. The Republicans created this big, bogeyman issue to scare their base. They dropped this issue in our laps.

Given that, what were we supposed to do? Say, "No, we won't fight this -- we didn't really want to get married, ever... and besides, standing up against this attack might hurt the Democratic party"?

It was never a matter of "We're Here, We're Queer, We're Getting Married, Live With It," until the Radical Right turned it into that.

You make us sound the mythical "radical militant queers" the fundies (and many in-name-only Democrats) think we are.

All I ever wanted was an equal footing with straight couples. Over the past seven years, I would have MORE than settled, quite happily, for NOTHING BUT equal immigration rights. At the same time, half the gay people I know don't give a hoot whether our partnerships are called "marriage," or "entangling your finances," as long as our rights and privileges are the same as hetero couples'.

We were, as a community, taking the baby steps. But what in the hell do you expect us to do when the marriage issue is foisted on us? Roll over?

Finally, define "overnight." To me, "overnight" means 45 years (my lifetime), or 37 years (since Stonewall), or at the very least 30 years (since I've been out and fighting for equal rights).

If spending the last 30 years carving out right by right and privilege by privilege -- which has not been unlike trying to dig the Chunnel with a spoon -- comes across as "impatient" to you, then I've been right all along: I really will be dead before LGBT Americans have a place at the table.

Incidentally, calling those of us who are fed to the gills with this back-of-the-bus treatment "adolescent" and "defiant" is extremely insulting. The former is obviously insulting; the latter makes it sound as though we are expected to bend to the authority of the hetero world.

We're simply not playing "House Negro" anymore. We've done that. It doesn't work. And that scares some people.

[L A Woman]

42. Sorry, you're right.

I agree with everything you've said. If they brought it up, we have no choice but to fight them on it. I just worry, I guess. I can't stomach the idea of another moment with these mindless idiots in power. I am really hoping people are so focused on the disastrous Bush War that they don't vote based on this issue.

Sorry if I offended. Believe me, I am 100% in favor of gay and lesbian marriage and I hope I get to experience it one day!

:-)

[donco6]

45. Amen to that.

Great post. I'm 47 and so very, very tired of fighting my way to the table in a party that's supposed to be supporting me! A party I've supported with time and money and effort for years. I will not live as a second class citizen any longer. Maybe it's time some Dems grew a couple and became boy dogs.

[Maven]

46. Fine.

Then I want every single person telling gays and lesbians to "just wait" to be at the goddamned forefront of legislative efforts to win us our equal rights after the election. I want every straight person telling us to wait, not to seek assistance from the courts, to show up at phonebanking efforts for GLBT causes. I want every single one of them to show up at rallies, to call their representatives, to tell the Dem leadership to grow some integrity on this issue. I want every one of them to get up, go out, and dedicate themselves to righting this injustice with the same indignation and the same fortitude with which they proclaim, "sit down, queers, you're ruining our strategy."

But you know what? Somehow I don't think that's gonna happen. Somehow I don't think that the people telling us to wait today are the people who will put in the effort to actually help us tomorrow. Those people have no right to tell us not to fight. We know who are real allies are, and they aren't the people who would blame us for wanting to be equal, any way we can.

[Sapphocrat]

32. "Stunt."

That's enough to make me stop reading right there.

You really don't get it, and I'm afraid you never will.

[Puglover]

35. I saw that too.

It told me all I needed to know.

[L A Woman]

37. I wouldn't have used that word...

but I agree with his/her overall point. I do think that sometimes you have to put your immediate desires aside for the greater good. AFTER Democrats take control of Congress, then we can start making a few demands, since we surely are helping them get there. Doing it two weeks before a mid-term election is just dumb.

And then the day after the election, when Republicans retain control because Middle America has been scared once more by another gay marriage victory, all DUers will be whining about will be "voter fraud."

The timing of the New Jersey gay marriage decision was so alarmingly bad for Democrats, that I almost think a Republican had to be behind it.

[Puglover]

40. So it could'nt possibly BE voter fraud?

Naw, it's the nasty faggots again.

[L A Woman]

43. No no no...

I am just saying we need to be aware that an awful lot of people are actually voting for THEM because they hate US. We can't blame everything on voter fraud. Our time is better spent educating people, IMO.

[ruggerson]

47. Gavin Newsom will go down in the history books as a heroic crusader

Someone who used the time honored practice of civil disobedience to courageously advance a noble issue of human rights and dignity.

You?

You can't even shine his shoes.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

51. Oh sorry, it was called the "gay agenda" not the "homosexual agenda"

And it was *not* mocking the righties.

[Mr_Spock]

62. Good points

Incongruent conflation doesn't work well in politics.

[sui generis]

25. yeah, pug, I made that error in judgement

of having a strong opinion about where the death penalty and progressive ideals part ways. And I took no prisoners and almost got my ass canned by the powers that be.

And put on lots of people's hate list - vuh. No loss at all.

On the topic of homophobia: it's not "active" homophobia. There are some people who are just butt-damn-stupid ignant assholes who think the world should be ONLY just the way they conceive it. They were the same people forty years ago who were calling themselves "liberal" and saying they were all FOR letting blacks marry, just not marry whites. Always have to have an opinion about crap that doesn't concern them. They love to use the word "allow" as if it is bestowed with great generosity and can be taken away at any moment, as if we require someone else's permission.

That's all. :)

I don't even NEED flame retardant for this one.

Seriously though, it IS a matter of exposure. We come from all over socially, geographically, demographically and some people just have never HAD to think about it or discuss it except in a political context, and they earnestly believe that there are more important (less embarrassing and uncomfortable) things to be talking about as long as they've mustered the energy to talk about politics. Some can be brought along; others are hopeless, and fortunately in the extreme minority here.

It is ignorance and insensitivity, but even the hopeless among them can be dragged kicking and screaming into seeing that we don't give a SHIT what they think. Just let us be, let us have our own lives, and keep your fucking opinions about whether you like broccoli or pre-owned snatch or the "gay agenda" to yourself. We don't care. We have no opinion about how they conduct their lives that we feel compelled to share with them, for sure.

I am so friendly today. And by the "they" I mean the opinionated ignant ones who believe they are the arbiters of normalcy and morality and decency, again, as if we should give a shit.

[davidinalameda]

38. I've felt that way for a LONG time

there are plenty of anti-gay posters on here

[Chovexani]

48. It's gotten worse and worse

And I'm like a moth to the goddamn flame war.

GD is a cesspool. It always has been to some extent, but it's even worse now.

[terrya]

49. I don't like the patronizing attitude that we should just wait.

We should just wait like good little boys and girls for the same rights as heterosexual Americans. Christ, some of the people around here all but pat us on the head while talking down to us like that.

It's disgraceful. It's shitty, it's wrong and it's so, so very sad. To see Democrats and allegedly progressive people treating us like second class citizens. The other party does that. Not Democrats.

Personally, it's going to be a long, long time before GLBT people get the rights we deserve. It's going to take 30 - 50 years for all 50 states to recognize same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage in Utah, Idaho, Alabama and Mississippi ain't happening anytime soon. It's going to be a long struggle. But we ultimately WILL prevail. And I think we recognize it. It's just that we don't need to have this kind of homophobia shoved into our faces here.

[Liberal Veteran]

50. I think maybe you are being a bit too hard on them.

It's all a matter of perspective. There are damn few liberals that truly oppose complete equality for GLBT.

That's a fact.

What you are seeing is people trying to balance idealism and pragmatism. It isn't a matter of hatred of gays or homophobia, but an acknowledgment that GLBT rights has been used as a wedge issue and a rallying cry for the right wing and Christian fundamentalist movement.

I don't resent the fact that people acknowledge that the right wing's REAL homophobia is a damned hard thing to counter. It is. I don't care what kind of spin you use, a good portion, if not the majority of the dominant religion in the United States HATES us. That may not be the word they want to use, but it is true nonetheless.

People are scared. And with damned good reason given the excesses of the direction our country has taken under the yoke of the far right. Hell, I'M scared. As we stand on the edge of a great victory, people are scared of ANYTHING that might allow the forces of fascism and tyranny to snatch that victory from our grasp.

That fear is what makes them worry. I would be a liar if I said I didn't wish the court in NJ had postponed their decision for two weeks. Call me a traitor to the cause for thinking that, but if we refuse to acknowledge how the right's hatred of us is a powerful tool in the arsenal of their spin machine, then we aren't doing ourselves or our party any good.

Don't be so hard on them for trying to express something their very real fears, even though they sometimes do it in a most clumsy and even sometimes offensive way. The people on this board are NOT our enemies and don't share the visceral hatred the right has for the GLBT community.

I know it sucks, but people are just plain scared. The vast majority of the people on this board aren't trying to throw us to wolves. Please, try to keep that in mind.

[Smarmie Doofus]

52. The hard fact is.... you are correct. The reality is...

... the marriage issue ( and to a lesser extent LGBT rights in general) is political poison for the DEM party in *many* places.


>>>but if we refuse to acknowledge how the right's hatred of us is a powerful tool in the arsenal of their spin machine, then we aren't doing ourselves or our party any good.>>>>

Well, that would be the heart of it.

>>> There are damn few liberals that truly oppose complete equality for GLBT.>>>>

OTOH, this can't possibly be true. The other boards are chock-full of homophobic remarks. Here's a typical scenario: someone starts a thread about Rove, Mehlman, Limbaugh, etc. etc. etc. What they *said* isn't at issue; what they *did* isn't at issue. Rather, who they might be sleeping with, or what they might be doing with whomever they are sleeping with is the issue. Invariably the implication is that they're gay . Invariably the implication is that being gay is a defect.

When called on it they always say they are referencing the 'hypocrisy' involved, not the person's sexuality.

Yeah. OK. I see.

So, are these primarily the same folks counseling backburnering the 'agenda' in the interests of winning elections? For the most part , I have to say , "no".

First of all, they ( the 'Limbaugh's bad so he must be gay' types) don't seem sufficiently perceptive for that.

For the most part, that advice seems to come from folks who are genuinely alarmed at the idea of yet another election cycle being stolen by the bad guys demagoguing a complicated, easily demagog-able issue. I can appreciate the difficulty of that dilemma.

That said, there is plenty of stupidity and ignorance on DU re. homosexuality. I suspect this fact fuels a lot of the animus in this particular thread, confusing the issue ( or threatening to do so).

But from what I've seen, most of the alarm about the NJ marriage decision has flowed from the computers of pragmatists... not homophobes.

[Sapphocrat]

53. I don't think we are being too hard on...

...the most vociferous "pragmatists" at all ("pragmatism," of course, being a euphemism for deeply entrenched homophobia).

Are they merely a vocal minority on DU? Not as I see it. But let's say they are in the minority; if no one calls them on their hypocrisy and smacks down the stealth bigotry, their "pragmatism" stands a chance of influencing the more levelheaded among us.

And then they won't be a minority anymore.

As for being "just plain scared" -- with that, I do agree, to an extent. And I have to laugh: The worst offenders scream the loudest that they are NOT HOMOPHOBIC!

And what is homophobia? Fear of homos!

But go try to explain to these fountains of self-denial that they are the very epitome of homophobia, and see how far it gets you.

[ThomCat]

56. I disagree.

They may pay lip-service to supporting us, but their "pragmatism" always means that there's nothing behind those words. When push comes to shove they never support our efforts to move forward. It's always "wait until a better time."

[davidinalameda]

54. I'm currently having "disccusions" with some people

about how I'm not willing to vote for someone who doesn't support my rights and people have such a huge problem with that.

My favorite is how people constantly defend John Kerry and his actions during the 2004 election

You all remember that he was opposed to the gay marriage in Mass. and came out in support of the anti-marriage amdendment in Missouri

I'm disgusted by these so-called progressives

they're willing to sell us down the river for a few more votes.

[ThomCat]

55. And yet, they'll get viciously offended if you call them on

their bigotry.

They should at least be honest in their total lack of concern for our civil rights.
x(

[davidinalameda]

57. hateful doesn't even begin to describe what they are

[closeupready]

58. To be fair to Kerry,

at least as I recall it happening, at some point after he lost the election in 2004, he made a statement while in MO that a proposed pro-gay marriage plank in the MA dem platform was the wrong thing to do. I don't recall a retraction, but I think he backed away from opposing this at a later point.

[davidinalameda]

59. why didn't he make that retraction during the campaign

I know that I'm not alone in not being able to forget what Kerry did in the 2004 caampaign

[closeupready]

60. We may be talking about two different things.

the only remark I recall Kerry making during the 2004 campaign was that he felt "marriage" was between a man and woman and was against the FMA. The remark from Missouri came after he had lost the election, in 2005, if I recall correctly.

[davidinalameda]

61. I don't remember it that way

but oh well

:pals: