Reconciliation on the Warren issue

[Two Americas]

Let's look at the point of view from one of the sides in the ongoing debate here. I think it is the continued expression of that point of view that is causing the uproar.

"Look I support gay marriage and gay rights, and don't get me wrong I do not like Warren, but the gay people are making far too big a deal out of this, and are being hateful and bigoted themselves, and are acting in ways that are not good, which is driving away their supporters and hurting the party and therefore actually setting back their cause."

That is the anti-gay point of view here. It is the only socially acceptable way to express opposition to the GLBTQ community in liberal circles, the only way to express opposition to the GLBTQ community that is permitted here by the rules.

The point of the rules is not to inform people of precisely which words they are permitted to use - "so long as you mouth the words 'I support gay marriage' you are good." There is a spirit to the law, so to speak, as well as the letter of the law. The point of the rules is to make a declaration that this community supports our brothers and sisters in the GLBTQ community. Otherwise, what is the point?

It costs people nothing, carries no risks, does not directly affect them to merely pay lip service to the official position and say that they support gay marriage. It represents a beginning, a start at understanding and supporting the GLBTQ community, not the last step or the last word.

It also means nothing to say that one does not "like Warren." There is much hostility here to religion of all kinds, and also much hostility toward any and all activities of the common people and the rural and blue collar whites who are most attracted to the religious right. Saying that one does not like Warren does the GLBTQ folks no favors, and doesn't prove anything.

Now we are up to the word "but" in that argument, and what follows are words of opposition to the people in the GLBTQ community. "They" have "their cause," and "they" are not going about things right, and "they" are alienating their supporters, and "they" are the ones in the way here and causing all of the trouble, and "they" are hurting the larger community, and "they" are setting back their own cause.

I am not overstating this. What I just wrote is very mild when compared to some of the things people have written here about people in the GLBTQ community.

It is truly stunning to see the blind spot that too many here have about this, to see that they are unable or unwilling to notice how condescending and derogatory these characterizations are, how hateful and how hurtful.

If we distill the argument down to a few words, it would be "I am good on this issue; now let me tell you what is wrong with you people." Those making this argument want us to focus on the first part of that statement, and not the second. They want us to think that the first part of the statement is all that is important, and that it gives them permission to say anything they want to say based on the second part of the statement without being challenged or contradicted. So we may only talk about the first part, and they are free to talk about the second.

The first part is weak and shallow, it costs nothing, it is risk free and safe to say - it is meaningless in this context, and misapplied. The second part opens the door to the very ideas that isolate and marginalize people in the community based on their orientation, the ideas that dismiss and demean people, and that thinking is the root cause of hatred and bigotry, the foundation of the anti-gay movement.

People then get angry when any of us refuse to ignore the second part of the statement, and instead insist upon examining and discussing that part of the argument. Why can that not be discussed without people getting angry and hostile, and demanding that it cease? What is threatened by that?

This argument is not much different than Warrens's argument - "I love gay people; now let me tell you what is wrong with those people."

It is not so much that Warren was given an invitation that has many of us upset, it is that this has led to too many progressives and Democrats making anti-gay arguments - clever variations on the same anti-gay arguments that the religious right is making.

In some ways, the anti-gay arguments being made here are worse than those the religious right is making - more hurtful and more destructive. It is one thing to be attacked by your known enemies, and yet another matter to be wounded in the house of your friends.

Some will see this post as yet another salvo in the ongoing war. Some will see it as a clever chess move intended to defeat them or embarrass them. Some will see it as the latest talking point in an ongoing "Crossfire" shout fest. It is none of those things. It is an appeal for reconciliation.

How can we resolve the bitter feud here? One side can stop speaking. The side that people are demanding cease speaking is always the side defending the GLBTQ community, but even were that not the case it is a poor peace indeed that is won at the price of silencing one of the two parties and forcing them to submit and surrender, regardless of which side is forced to do that. We could "agree to disagree" and let it fester and grow until it erupts again.

Or we can discuss it. If you read this and find yourself getting angry and hostile, I would ask you to think about just why that might be. What can it hurt to discuss this? Is being right more important than the community, of more value than the people who are members of this community, our friends and allies?

The feud here is being caused by the stubborn refusal by some to examine and discuss this subject. The anger, and the fear, springs from that, and is directed at those who continue to discuss this subject. That is a weakness, an Achilles heel. Refusing to discuss and examine an issue that is related to hatred and bigotry contradicts everything that it means to be a liberal or a progressive. It makes us all into hypocrites and cowards.

The only meaningful and powerful way to resolve the feud and to reconcile the two sides is to examine and discuss this issue, and to stop demanding that we move on and sweep this under the rug. Do we as a community now have the courage to do this?

[Marrah_G]

1. An excellent post that I fear will fall of deaf ears my friend

[Two Americas]

6. thanks

Gotta keep trying, you know?

[bluestateguy]

2. Fine. I'll jump in.

I disagree with having Warren as the invocation pastor. It's one thing to reach out, another to give somebody a major platform, with whom your ideas are so diametrically opposed.

Having said that, policies matter most. The policies that the Obama Administration pursues as far as gays and lesbians matter far more than who he chooses to give a prayer at his inaugural. For example, LBJ is known to have used racial slurs in private conversations while he was president. That deserves condemnation, but what matters more? His civil rights policies, or his private rantings? He pursued the most progressive civil rights agenda in American history, making a positive difference for black people for generations. That's just a little more important than his private racist rants.

So if Obama brings about the end of DADT in the military, and signs (or at least forcefully advocates) the ENDA law, that will make much more of a difference in people's lives than Rick Warren's prayer recitation.

[Two Americas]

5. sure

It could be said that policies matter most, especially in hindsight. It is just not the only thing that matters. Before policy comes public pressure, and before public pressure comes ideas, and before ideas comes examination and discussion of the issue.

[Spryboy]

92. I think you just need to understand one thing...

...and that's that Rick Warren was one of the major generals pushing Prop 8 in California, which passed, and ACTIVELY STRIPPED EXISTING CIVIL RIGHTS FROM A MINORITY.

The selection of Rick Warren was like a kick in the gut after the gay-bashing we'd just received in California (and two other states, remember).

The reaction from gay people was very, very understandable. The fact that so many people here DIDN'T understand it was another slap in the face.

Nobody was seriously saying that Obama was a horrible person, worse than Bush or McCain, or that they wished they'd never voted for him. Some trolls, or some people really venting their frustration might have walked right up to that line, but they didn't honestly mean it: they were venting.

It was an action that called into question just how Obama thought of GLBT people and issues, and made many people wonder if he was all talk, or if he was just as fine with throwing gays under the bus as Clinton was with DADT and DOMA, and his recommendations to Kerry in 2004.

You see, we've been burnt before. Many, many times.

The selection of Warren was just so politically tone-deaf, and really seemed to spit in the face of gay people. After Prop 8, the huge backlash was completely predictable. That the Obama team was taken by surprise also seems to tell us something that scares us: that he doesn't quite "get" it, when we thought he did.

Things are simmering down now, and in less than a week, it'll all be in the past, Obama will actually be in power, and will actually start to have actions to critique rather than just words or choices.

Just dont' belittle or dismiss the pain and frustration that gay people felt over this. We've really had it up to here, and being poked in the eye by "friends" after everything else is just adding insult to injury. Try harder to understand. We know he *might* do some things like get ENDA passed (finally), get DADT and DOMA on the road to repeal, etc., but that's really not the point to our venting our frustration and pain RIGHT NOW. We've been the whipping boy too long for us to take too much comfort in some future promises when we're getting the crap beat out of us right now (Prop 8). That the selection of Rick Warren isn't a huge deal and won't make a huge impact against gay rights down the road isn't the point. We know that. We're not stupid. It's what it says about the Obama team's thinking and just how inconsiderate they were to put one of the chief forces of our recent oppression (Prop 8) front and center like that, when there were numerous other choices that could have and should have been made. It was just handled very badly. Obama's first real gaffe.

Just don't sit there clucking your tongue and telling us our pain doesn't hurt, that we have no right to be frustrated, or that it's stupid to be disappointed. You wouldn't know. You haven't walked in our shoes.

[Starry Messenger]

106. Really great post Spryboy.

I think a lot of people have a hard time understanding what Prop 8 really was. It sounds kind of abstract on paper. And people like Warren lied so hard about it, that the fallout obscures a lot of conversations about it.

Prop 8 was an amendment to the State Constitution voted on and passed by a majority. It doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to see what else could be done in that area by anyone with an oppressive agenda.

[AntiFascist]

135. Many people (not in California) also have a hard time understanding...

how Obama's own words added to the success of Prop 8, eventhough he and Biden were officially against it. I'll continue pointing this out until I'm blue in the face.

Great posts MPK and Spryboy!

:kick:

[Zhade]

155. Fantastic post.

You said it.

[Moonwalk]

176. Awesome Post, Spryboy. And While I haven't Walked in Your Shoes...

I think I can say that I share some measure of your profound disappointment in Obama regarding this decision. I think we all understand what he was going for/trying, but it was a graffe. A high-handed move that backfired. Unless there's something really smart he's doing that we've completely missing--and won't see till later--it wasn't the right thing to do.

There's been a lot of comparison of Obama to FDR and Lincoln and such, but I suspect that he might well find himself measured against Johnson in the end. A man who, while trying to create his great society, found himself dealing with a civil rights movement that was outside his influence. One he could not ignore or slow down, and--if the comparison holds true--one he did well with, but which also forced him to face his own ingrained prejudices--prejudices so ingrained he, like many others, did not realize he had them until he was faced with those marches and protests and such.

Ultimately, that is what matters, far more than Obama or Warren. That no one in favor of gay rights, REALLY in favor, allows gays to be swept under the rug again. And that's why it's all right with heterosexual me to take Obama to task on this decision. He doesn't get off any more than those who voted "yes" on prop. 8 get off. Because letting people wiggle out of responsiblity for making such decisons, rather than facing real consequences for them, allows them to keep thoughtlessly doing them.

I think Obama will think long and hard next time he makes such a decision, and not be so eager to go for a symbolic point which, far from making him look inclusive, damages his credibility.

[Two Americas]

203. great post

Thanks, Spryboy. That is a great post.

[defendandprotect]

209. If Skinner/DU "get" the importance of standing against homophobia ...

Is it too much to ask why the man about to become our president is insensitive

to that need -- ???

[Buzz Clik]

275. Your logic isn't just bad, it doesn't exist. You are attempting to create a false dilemma.

The refusal to join the chorus against Warren does not make one homophobic. Being called homophobic by a pissed off poster doesn't make it so.

It's a matter of priorities, and nothing more. I consider equal rights for all Americans to be a huge priority. Letting that petty prick Warren chant to his invisible friend for a couple of minutes during the inauguration is a teeny tiny threat compared to the tidal wave of resistance.

It's about time that people at DU -- not just the GBLT folks but everyone with a critical cause -- develop the ability to recognize the real enemy.

[Moonwalk]

284. How is Warren not the real Enemy? How is giving him a forum not a real threat?

Giving him a forum to lure in more followers who can give money, protest against, vote against, maintain lies against, and block laws for gay rights, etc. Is all a significant part of the "real" enemy.

As for that imaginary friend: Keep in mind that men who believed in a similar imaginary friend got other men to fly planes into the World Trade Tower in honor of that imaginary friend and the laws that these people insisted were the laws of that imaginary friend. It is fine to dismiss god as imaginary, but it is stupid--really, really, really stupid--to dismiss the influence of men and women who say they can talk to that imaginary friend. They can motivate people to go on crusades and jihad's.

I do not and will not consider any religious fanatic who has a significant following and a direct line to politicians, most especially the President of the United States, as a "tiny tiny threat" and not the "real" enemy. Warren is very much a real enemy. He has influence, power and leadership, and now he's going to be the first figure seen on the most watched Inauguration in history. I think that qualifies him as being a little larger than "teeny tiny" in threat measurements--and certainly a part of that "real" enemy if not the whole of that "real" enemy.

[defendandprotect]

313. Perhaps you think standards at DU should be higher . . .

than standards for the Inauguration . . . ?

Let me make clear that much overlooked here is the fact that Warren is a multiple offender.

The homosexual community everywhere has been overburdened with blame for criticism of

of Warren. HOWEVER, while I am not gay, I am female and I feel just as threatened by this

selection as I understand that homosexuals feel threatened by this selection.

Further, Jews and even African-Americans should also feel threatened by this promotion of

a Bibical literalist.

And I don't think that anyone's Human Rights is a "matter of priorities" . . . !!!

It's a matter of priorities, and nothing more. I consider equal rights for all Americans to be a huge priority. Letting that petty prick Warren chant to his invisible friend for a couple of minutes during the inauguration is a teeny tiny threat compared to the tidal wave of resistance.

It's about time that people at DU -- not just the GBLT folks but everyone with a critical cause -- develop the ability to recognize the real enemy.

The real enemy is patriarchy and organized patriarchal religions and corrupt government

which does their bidding.

[PVnRT]

3. K&R

:kick:

[PunkinPi]

4. K&R

for the community's sake

[TheWraith]

7. Nobody who's going to remain on DU is making "anti-gay arguments."

Contrary to some people's opinions, not being ready to throw Obama and everyone else under the bus doesn't make one anti-gay.

[Two Americas]

9. didn't say that it did

I didn't say that anyone should be ready to "throw Obama and everyone else under the bus" nor that this should be the test for whether one was or was not anti-gay.

[leftstreet]

11. People fell lockstep into the bullshittery of wedge issue politics

That's why wedge issue politics work.

"Which side do you side with on this gay stuff?"

Imagine how the Warren issue would have shaken out in the Leftosphere had there been overwhelming support for the gay community. How much faster we would have seen that Warren wasn't the issue at all.

[Zhade]

159. Our lives and rights aren't a wedge issue.

If you think that, you don't really support those rights.

[leftstreet]

191. They're framed and used as a wedge issue

But we're actually talking about Human Rights.

(You should know that.)

[The Doctor.]

204. There is overwhelming support for the gay community.

Just because it's not lockstep support doesn't mean it's not support.

[ThomCat]

210. There is the claim of support.

But it's often just empty claims.

My person opinion is that a lot of straight people personally wouldn't mind if we get rights, but wouldn't care if we don't either. And because they don't care either way, they count that as support. After all, they're not against us.

But how few are the straight people who actively do anything to support us in any way? There is damned little of that here. There are a comparative handful of people even here at DU.

Overwhelming support? No way in hell.

[The Doctor.]

227. Really?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4716492 Over 200 recs too. I know, that's not enough.

Voicing support... not enough.

Turning homophobes... not enough.

Donating to causes.... not enough.

Calling politicians... not enough.

Writing LTTEs.... not enough.

Marching in parades... not enough.

Running for President with the most pro-gay agenda in history... not enough.

From what I've seen, nothing is 'enough' unless you're gay.


Meanwhile, I'm really impressed with your omniscience. That you are so sure that so many who pro-GLBT here are actually doing 'nothing' in RL must take some kind of special powers.

Or maybe that's just what you want to believe.

Why is that?

[ThomCat]

232. Saying you support us costs nothing, and provides nothing.

All that other stuff, that's great. I hope you really do.

But if at the end of the day you're constantly telling the LGBT community to sit down and shut up because you're worried that we're offending straight people then you are overstepping your bounds.

You don't get to tell us how to achieve our civil rights. You don't get to tell us preserving straight sensibilities is more important than our civil rights.

Posting a thread for a bunch of people to kick is easy. But how many of those people did any of the things you list?

[keepthemhonest]

265. bullcrap look who is making generalizations.

"a lot of straight people personally wouldn't mind if we get rights, but wouldn't care if we don't either"


All people(with an emphasis on ALL) need to stop making generalizations and then we can start to heal.

[Two Americas]

290. we could never say anything

If no generalizations can ever be made, it becomes impossible to discuss politics at all. All we are then left with is individuals - personal feelings, personal choices, personal values. That is what the right wing propagandists have been pounding into us for decades now, and it is a way to isolate and weaken us, to divide and conquer us.

"We need to heal" in a political context usually means "you need to surrender and submit."



.

[Lautremont]

74. Why is thinking the Warren invite was a stupid decision the same as

"throwing Obama under the bus?"

(That under-the-bus thing is a term I though I'd heard the last of, but maybe not.)

[ThomCat]

81. I don't understand how anyone can throw Obama under the bus

when he's now the one driving it. :shrug:

[LostinVA]

133. I'm stealing that

[ThomCat]

136. :)

I can't PM you.

Can you please contact me? I have a question for you. I'm on facebook and gmail, or can I relay a PM through someone?

[LostinVA]

169. PM me here

[Marrah_G]

84. o...m...g.........

The irony is killing me...

:rofl:

I can't even get mad anymore. It's just that pathetic.

[rosesaylavee]

8. A very kind post.

thank you for posting it.

K & R

[leftstreet]

10. "I love gay people; now let me tell you what is wrong with those people"

A perfect statement!

K&R

Well done.

[Zuiderelle]

12. Yes.

:patriot:

Not surprisingly, I see some people have already responded without having read or digested what your wrote, or are just steadfastly refusing to empathize. But hopefully, others who may be capable of understanding it will read it and have a light go on.

[racaulk]

25. .

[Zuiderelle]

28. Yup

[LostinVA]

36. I just emailed this thread to Haruka

[ThomCat]

37. I hope she enjoys the flame out.

:)

[LostinVA]

38. She's ticked she can't access from work

So, I try to send her "selected" threads a few times a day.

[Zuiderelle]

39. It's a doozy. Make sure you save it for posterity.

I'm sure it's not much longer for this world.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nichomachus]

14. An analogy

Imagine you are a woman who is in an abusive marriage. You finally dump the abuser and find yourself someone you think is a really nice guy. He asks you to marry him and you accept. Then, he asks your abusive ex-husband (who claims he still loves you) to give the toast at your wedding. Would that be a big deal or not?

[Two Americas]

22. good analogy

That is very powerful.

[Soylent Brice]

26. i've seen my dad have my stepdad over for a beer before.

it was after my mom re-married.

my dad wasn't physically abusive, but mentally. my stepdad accepted so he could keep from rocking the boat and driving a wedge between the family. he wanted my sisters and i to not have to make the decision to side with either him or my dad. it was a sordid state of affairs. if he refused he would look like a dick and give my dad reason to talk shit about him to my sisters and i.

by doing so it also essentially told me it was okay to love my dad, that this new guy wouldn't try to "take over" i guess, and that he was okay with that. he wasn't trying to replace him. he also was demonstrating what it was like to be selfless, for even one moment. he could have just as easily told my dad to go screw himself, and demanded an apology for all that he has done to wrong my mother. instead he took it as an opportunity to explain to my dad as well that so long as we were treated right he would never impose on my dad's visitation rights, amongst discussing other things.


interpret the story how you like. for me i see both sides of this issue, as i have a sister that is gay, and i love her dearly, but i am also one to advocate peace and reasoning. peace comes with progress. progress comes with moving forward by learning from mistakes of the past.

[nichomachus]

282. Good point

And I would have no problem with Obama meeting with Warren from time to time either. But my analogy still holds. You're dad and step dad getting together isn't the same as him asking your dad to be best man at his wedding. That's an honor that should be reserved for someone else. To do that would have been a slap in the face to your mom.

[Soylent Brice]

297. agreed, to an extent

the crap my mom went through was pretty bad. details aside, i'm sure she's still haunted by a few instances of her 1st marriage.

it may not be the same technically, but i'm sure my mother would disagree with you.

it was a stupid decision to invite this dick to begin with.

[Control-Z]

79. Yes,

whether the ex still loves her or not (it really makes no difference), the new husband shows more respect and consideration for him than he does for his new wife. He's more concerned with pleasing the abuser than pleasing her. Why? Why would her needs come second to his?

[BigBearJohn]

230. great analogy

[bvar22]

15. I don't see this as a GLBT Issue at all.

It is an American Issue that affects everyone.

I look for a gray area and can find none here.
It IS Black or White:

You either support immediate Civil Rights and Equal Protections for ALL,

OR

You support Bigotry.

It is that simple, and applies to ALL issues of discrimination.....
not only to the Warren issue and resulting controversy, but to the Equal Pay Issue being "debated" in the Senate.

It IS the SAME Issue.
There are NO exception when it comes to Civil Rights and Equal Protection.

Anyone attempting to argue against immediate Civil Rights and Equal Protections FOR ALL because "it is inconvenient or the timing is wrong" really needs to check themselves.

[KitchenWitch]

42. Best reply on this thread!

:yourock:

[Two Americas]

55. thanks bvar22

That is very well said.

[AtheistCrusader]

96. Civil Rights are non-negotiable.

Thank you for that post. You summed up the issue nicely.

[Jamastiene]

141. I want to give you a hug.

:hug:

[varelse]

158. I'm with you

and it really is that simple.

[Zhade]

160. Love ya, bvar.

Always have!

[The Doctor.]

212. Who has argued against civil rights for all?

The closest thing to any such arguments I've seen is that Obama may have decided that spending political capital on gay marriage before finding bipartisan solutions to to the biggest economic crisis in any of our lifetimes might be a bad idea.

There's a good case to be made for that given the ignorance in this country, but that's still not an argument against civil rights. Nor it is an argument against people doing something about it now.

It seems that misinterpreting and mischaracterizing people's positions is a cottage industry around here lately.

[ThomCat]

215. "Civil rights delayed are civil rights denied." Martin Luthor King Jr.

Many straight people are more than happy to watch us wait and wait and wait forever to someday get our rights until it's convenient someday, but it'll never happen unless we're never willing to wait.

It'll happen because we kept pushing over and over again despite the stuff you're spouting. It'll happen because we didn't listen to bullshit about political capital.

If you were the one being denied basic human rights I bet you'd feel differently.

[The Doctor.]

217. Like I said; Mischaracterizing people's positions is a cottage industry here.

So why do you do it?

Where did I EVER suggest that people should 'just wait'?

Never did. But you need to believe I'm saying what I haven't so you have someone to be angry at. Right?

Is there another explanation?

Why do you insist on believing that which is not true?

[ThomCat]

219. Of course you did.

You just talked about Obama waiting to spend political capital until after dealing with more important issues.

But how long is that wait going to be? Weeks? Months? Years?

We've heard this before many times. It's nothing new. You're only fooling yourself trying to think you're so smart.

You're naysaying the people working for real change, and what solution are you offering?

[The Doctor.]

238. So, only Obama can do something? You and I can't?

My saying that OBAMA might be making a mistake by pushing an agenda is not saying that we should 'wait' for anything, or that anything should be delayed.

Again, you hear what you want to hear, not what's being said.

I keep asking you why you do that, but you really don't have the introspective ability to answer, do you?

[ThomCat]

240. I didn't say that nobody else could do anything.

And I have no idea where you got that from. You're grasping.

You sited that example of Obama delaying on our issue, and sited it as justified, so I called you on it. Get over it.

Now you're insulting my intellectual ability. That's a sure sign that you have nothing more to say.

[Pacifist Patriot]

262. Absolutely!

[racaulk]

266. Fantastic!

:applause:

[AmyCamus]

269. Gay rights, woman's rights, reproductive rights - are HUMAN rights.

And Warren is wrong on all three.

[yardwork]

315. Yes. Thank you.

[cliffordu]

16. ....K&R

[ThomCat]

17. Wow! Excellent!

"I am good on this issue; now let me tell you what is wrong with you people."

That is exactly what we've been getting from a lot of straight people. Thank you!

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Well done

as your posts always are.

[dmallind]

19. Why insist on framing the "other" side just to knock em down?

That's easy and far from a "clever" chess move. Essentially what you are saying is any disagreement from your POV and that of the most strident protestors of Warren is anti-gay.

Your opening was fine until you added on the uinnecessary (and rarely seen in reality) strawman extrapolation.

What's wrong with just the first part of your concocted view of the "other side"? Necessary (and far more realistic) insertions in capitals are mine.

"Look I support gay marriage and gay rights, and don't get me wrong I do not like Warren, but SOME OF the gay people are making far too big a deal out of this..EXCESS STRAWMAN SNIPPED"

Not all GLBT folks are making a huge deal of it. Some are. Whether people in or out of the community think Warren is less of a big deal than you'd like makes them anti-gay, or attempted censors, only in the minds of those who are more vigorously opposed. In reality we simply disagree with how big a deal it is.

If you can't accept that as possible without pretending you can (of course negatively) imagine our "real" opinions via the internet, then that's a subjective problem on your part. Not everybody, or even everyone who is GLBT, reacts the same way, or cares about the same things at the same level.

[NJmaverick]

23. ding ding ding.... we have a winner!

[Zuiderelle]

58. Silly

Just silly. Unbelievably silly.

[racaulk]

62. Your bigotry is appalling.

[Zuiderelle]

69. I know. Bigotry against silly people is the last acceptable bigotry.

But, wait, silly straight people can get married. No fair.

[racaulk]

75. By the way, what was matcom right about?

I don't think you got the chance to answer before the subthread above was deleted, and I'm curious to know about what you were referring.

[sniffa]

91. I know the answer

[LostinVA]

24. It's not a strawman, it's what has been said

And no, I can't link to the bazillion posts saying this, because it is calling out members and against DU rules.

[Two Americas]

31. yes

I have read hundreds of posts expressing that point of view, and sincerely tried to describe it accurately.

A "straw man" would be making up an imaginary argument that no one had made. But the argument I am describing is being made here several times an hour, every day.

[LostinVA]

32. Exactly, that's why I don't think that term is at all accurate

[dmallind]

263. So what IS a strawman if not framing an argument as universal to your opponent

when it is not? How MANY arguments of "you are offending people and must be silenced!" have been made compared to the immeasurably more common response like mine that we're simply not all THAT offended by Warren's inclusion in an event completely and utterly separate from discussions of gay rights. Saying "somebody said it once or twice" is essentially saying "it's a strawnman - people who disagree with me about the level of offense generally don;t say this". So unless thgat argument is universal or generic to those whgo disagree with the OP it is in fact a strawman.

[Two Americas]

27. not at all

I am not saying that "any disagreement from my POV and that of the most strident protestors of Warren is anti-gay." I am saying that one particular argument is.

[dmallind]

260. Good - but how often is that argument made

Is it not true that most divergence from the Warren outrage on DU is simply like mine - that its is a suboptimal or even poor choice but nothing that is monstrous or worthy of great outrage? I of course have not read all the Warren tyhreads - that would be a full time job - but I've read plenty and have seen very very few responses that said people should not be offended at all.

About the only thing close to that I see is frustration that yet another thread is being posted saying the same thing. That doesn't mean there is censorship, any more than saying there is too much reality TV on the wirwaves is an attempt to ban Survivor.

[Two Americas]

288. don't know

You have framed your question in such a way that only the answer you are looking for is possible.

You see this as two groups - those engaging in the Warren outrage, and those diverging from that. We all think the same thing about Warren, you would have us believe, but a few are making too big a deal about it and are being endlessly outraged. Cooler, saner people, such as yourself, are not going too far and making too big a deal out if it.

But your analysis does not apply to me, and I don't think it is accurate in general. I am outraged about hatred and bigotry. The Warren invitation opened the floodgates for that. I think the word outrage is the appropriate word, but it has of course now been hijacked. We are supposed to see different amounts of outrage, and think that some amounts are OK and some are too much. The word is also being used to mock and ridicule and dismiss people - "poutrage" and "outrage junkies" and the like.

[dmallind]

294. Again with the fake quotes and psychic ability?

For God's sake how hard is it to stick to what I say rather than pretend you can guess what I really think?

Where is there even a HINT that I think the less outraged are"cooler and saner"? OR even that you are going too far? You are simply going further than me. Period. End of comparison. By obvious inversion I am not going as far as you in being offended. Once more and very clearly: that is the ONLY difference I personally posit. It's not about coolness or sanity or excess or anything else. It's about different levels of response to the same event. There is no "OK" and "not OK" level TO ME (although there certainly seems to be to you) as long as it remains legal. Again I am not the one calling you anti-gay or an obstacle for differing from me.

Please actually give me the credit to respond to what I say. I tried to do that to you and indeed to everyone. Misunderstandings are certainly not impossible, but I've tried to state this several times and I don;t think I've been all that unclear. Different levels of offense, outrage, disagreement, call it whatever are perfectly fine with me - I just ask for the same in return.

[Cherchez la Femme]

316. Fake quotes?!

Yoiks, man, just do a search for those words and you'll come up with plenty (IIRC there is "Poutrage" in at least one thread TITLE)! If you haven't seen them you haven't been reading any of these threads.

What, you don't like the words so they were never used? Think again.

Your obtuse and deliberate incomprehension, since you apparently refused to check for those phrases before posting such nonsense, is only superseded by your insistence upon making such unfounded, ridiculous confrontations.

One can't debate with ignorance (in this matter) and avoidance of reality.

[dmallind]

261. Good - but how often is that argument made

Is it not true that most divergence from the Warren outrage on DU is simply like mine - that its is a suboptimal or even poor choice but nothing that is monstrous or worthy of great outrage? I of course have not read all the Warren tyhreads - that would be a full time job - but I've read plenty and have seen very very few responses that said people should not be offended at all.

About the only thing close to that I see is frustration that yet another thread is being posted saying the same thing. That doesn't mean there is censorship, any more than saying there is too much reality TV on the wirwaves is an attempt to ban Survivor.

[ThomCat]

30. Even if we go along with what you want

"Look I support gay marriage and gay rights, and don't get me wrong I do not like Warren, but SOME OF the gay people are making far too big a deal out of this..EXCESS supposed STRAWMAN SNIPPED"

You're basically saying "I support gay marriage and gay rights, and don't get me wrong I do not like Warrent, but gay people are making far too big a deal out of this than I am comfortable with."

You're still putting it is straight people's hands to define how far GLBT people can go to act up, protest or argue for our own rights.

What is your role in helping us? Are you here to help us get further, or are you here to stop us at a certain point before we start offending other sensitive straight people? That's a damned serious question?

If you are here to help us get equal rights and you want us to move forward, then that's great. Do something, anything to help us move forward. But if you only role is to say "Stop, don't go any farther forward right now. You're offending people." Then you're a Stop Sign and a Road Block, not an ally. You're part of the opposition.

The people who don't really give a damn about our equal rights will always find reasons to be offended. They will always find reasons why we should slow down, or wait, or be quieter. Stop Signs and Road blocks don't move us forward.

[Yes We Did]

64. Yes...

but he's not saying all people, he's saying some people.

Some are complaining more than "HE" is comfortable with.

Don't get me wrong... it's still a b.s. argument, but he's already given you enough rope to hang him with; you don't need to waterboard him too. :evilgrin:

[ThomCat]

70. But who judges who is going too far?

Which straight people get to judge which gay people are making straight people uncomfortable and therefore have to stop and shut up?

:shrug:

You're right. :)

But when the argument is full of holes you just have to start poking them.

[Yes We Did]

78. We need a smiley for that!

:poke:

I don't have the answer... If I did, I probably wouldn't tell you anyway. It's too amusing to see you go after them. :evilgrin:

[Jamastiene]

148. Here is one.

I love this one. :evilgrin:

[Yes We Did]

177. That's Awesome!

Thanks!

[dmallind]

259. Sure - and the Op is saying the exact same analog

that I am not making a BIG ENOUGH deal compared to what he is comfortable with. Since comfort is subjective, both of these are perfectly valid arguments. I am not comfortable making a huge deal of this - he's not comfortable not doing so.

No problem there for me - I'm not the one insisting that everyone should be exactly as offended as me or make exactly as big a deal as me, or claiming that not doing so makes them anti-gay or treasonous to the gay rights cause.

What is my role in helping us? To help in things that matter substantively. Not to worry and get massively upset by somebody who is homophobic but already a celebrity talking about non-related issues on just one more TV appearance. Trust me if he uses that time to rail against gays and call for marriage restrictions and loss of rights THEN I'll be as upset as you want me to be, but if as I am 99.99999999% certain all we get is more godly pious platitudes from a preacher who also happens to be a homophobe (which is not exactly unusual after all) then no I really don;t see the need to get all hot and bothered about it.

Notice you are again putting words in my mouth. The words "stop - you're offending people" have never come from my keyboard on this issue and never will. Nor will any implication that people who ARE more offended than me should bottle it up and not express it (although for some reason disagreeing is always assumed to be censorship. I have never once seen a cogent reason why). You and the OP and the other more offended GLBT folks and allies have my perfectly free and full blessing (of course NOW you'll say you don;t need it, which is of course true - but in which case why was my disagreement taken to be an attempt to stifle you? How can it be?) to complain as much as you like within the bounds of law, after which we must part company. I just won;t complain with you that much because I'm NOT as offended.

Disagreement on level of outrage is not censorship, nor is it treason.

I could not give a toss about gays offending straights here - and that too for the poster a bit above is ALSO a strawman. Telling me what I said and why I said it is ALWAYS a strawman, unless I did in fact say it. Search as long as you want for any explicit or implicit censorship or concern about offending others from me. You won't find it, because it's man shaped and straw-filled. pretty simple.

[Yes We Did]

267. Analog? Didn't you here? Analog won't work after next month.

Neither will your analogy.

Because your right to not be upset does not infringe upon my right to be upset, and be upset as I want.

And besides; Obama is supposed to be the anti-Bush; he welcomes criticism.

[dmallind]

272. neither does your reading apparently

Try this: QUOTE from ME anything that implies you should not be upset. The analogy is exact - the OP is more upset than me. I am less upset than the OP. I and only I am fine with that, as I am not the one insulting those who are upset at a different level from my own.

[immoderate]

35. I like this response. The OP has "forced choice fallacy" all over it.

My feeling is that inviting Warren to give an invocation at a presidential inauguration is an insult to the Constitution. I fully support gays and their rights and I encourage those who are deeply distraught with Obama's action to express it. I have previously said that I think this sets up a trap for Warren, but I won't go into it again here.

In short, I agree with you, dmallind, and I don't see why we can't all get along, even if we have different feelings about Obama's choice.

--IMM

[treestar]

104. Exactly, it's almost as if, if one is gay one can never be wrong

or disproportionate on any related issue. We can't discuss it, just because we are straight. We should get mad over Warren just because we are told to. If we don't understand why, we are bigots.

Doesn't work. Either type of person could think it is an overreaction; either type of person could overreact.

[readmoreoften]

120. Not if "one" is gay. If "the majority of gays on DU can never be wrong" on their own issues.

That is what you are saying. You should also start telling other minorities what they should feel about their own experience: African-Americans and women are a great place to start. Take a hint from the conservatives and find a token who will take your side--a Phyllis Schlafly or a Sarah Palin or an Alan Keyes.

Or maybe you should accept that LGBT people know more about what is offensive to LGBT people than you do and take it for what it is.

[ThomCat]

131. It's not "one" gay person.

Unless you make a deliberate effort to constantly frame it as just one gay person at a time. That way you can constantly dismiss everyone, one person at a time.

That's a good way of dismissing all of us, and denying all of us any way of having any authority over our own issues. But that's what the majority always does.

White people have always told black people what they should be allowed to think about racism. Men have told women what they should be allowed to think about sexism. And straight people are telling LGBT people what we should be allowed to think about homophobia.

It's done by each individual straight person denying the larger LGBT voice one person at a time and insisting that the straight person's perspective must be right.

That is part of what we always have to fight against BEFORE we can even begin to fight for our civil rights in most discussions. We have to fight for the right to have our own opinions and the right to have them taken seriously.

Even here, they aren't really taken very seriously.

[Toasterlad]

143. No One's Asking You to Get Mad. We're Asking You To Stop Telling US NOT TO BE MAD.

It amazes me that straight people just don't get this. I guess privledge truly dulls you to the suffering of others.

[dmallind]

264. Well

A) I poosted the rebuttal that started teh subthread

B) I'm Bi

C) It did not imply let alone state that you should not be mad, merely that I wasn't all that bothered, and that does not make me anti-gay or an obstacle to gay rights.

d) Not all GLBT folks on DU are all that offended. I am far from alone. Since when did everyone have to have the same opinion to be valid? Isn't that more troublesome than disagreement?

[varelse]

163. Not everyone reacting to this is gay

some of us simply see human rights, equal protection, and the principle of separation of church and state as inviolable principles, not optional or incremental political positions.

A specific gender or sexual orientation is not required, nor is it relevant.

[unapatriciated]

270. correct, both my husband and I reacted with first dis-belief, hurt and then anger...

at the warren pick. Warren is against every civil right that many have fought for. He may hide it in a kinder, gentler way "love the sinner hate the sin" type of rhetoric, it still stinks of discrimination and bigotry.
We should be more afraid of the Warrens of the world than the Rushes or O'Rielys for they hide their bigotry under the cloak of religion and their so called "love" of their fellow man.

[Divine Discontent]

172. point blank - EVERY gay person I know is offended by Warren, and offended that Warren is pushing his

homophobia further into Africa, and is offended that Warren gets to say we're equitable to people who marry 10 year olds, and their siblings - AND (one more and) still is going to get to be honored with a pedestal to launch himself further from by being the minister who will be giving the Invocation at the Inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama, on January 20th, 2009.

Now if that isn't something to use as a reference in the world of religion and Africa to push your agenda - I don't know what is!

[Two Americas]

192. if I may...

I am the OP.

It is illogical to say that I am claiming that "if one is gay one can never be wrong" or that "we can't discuss it, just because we are straight."

I am straight.

[The Doctor.]

201. No, you've just done the inverse equivalent....

Calling anyone that points out that hatred is misplaced is about as anti-gay as not inviting your crazy aunt to dinner makes you 'anti-woman'.

Now, in the spirit of mindless outrage, please start screaming and yelling that I called gays 'dogs'.

You resurrected a flame fest, and did exactly the thing that pisses people off; you labeled them something they're not.

Luckily, there aren't that many mindless haters either way. You've gone out of your way to piss people off by oversimplifying and mischaracterizing their positions, then calling them 'anti-gay'.

You're a deliberate fire-starter who knew that you'd get lots and lots of angry gay folks to jump in and flame away.

That makes you part of the problem, despite what the title of this thread says.

[Two Americas]

205. that is not the truth

No "gay folks" have been "flaming away."

There were some hideously hateful posts, and once those appeared some people did react to them - as well they should. But other than those, and now that they have stopped for a while at least, the discussion has been very rational, respectful, considerate and productive.


.

[The Doctor.]

207. Right....

And that's why there are always so many deleted posts in these threads. :eyes:

You're feeding the rage with statements like the OP. You suggested that there are 'anti-gay' folks on DU. I haven't seen a one of them. What I have seen are 'anti-misplaced rage' folks, 'calm down' folks, etc. Calling that 'anti-gay' is some deliberately divisive bullshit.

Let it die for fuck's sake.

If you can't, then don't be surprised when you're called an instigator.

[ThomCat]

216. Only a straight person could possibly say that there is no anti-gay

talk here at DU. You clearly don't listen to anyone in the LGBT forum, nor do you give a damn about any of our opinions.

But then, that's normal in issues of discrimination and prejudice. The people in the majority always insist that there is no discrimination or prejudice. Everything is fine. Don't pay any attention to those people complaining over there. Black people don't know anything about racism. Women don't know anything about sexism. LGBT folk don't know anything about homophobia.

Thank God we've got straight people to tell us how good we've got it. :eyes:

[The Doctor.]

228. No problem, just point it out and I'll stand corrected.

From what I've seen so far, you live in far too subjective a place to do that.

[ThomCat]

234. Point out the anti-gay folks to you?

If you can look around here and see the everybody on the LGBT forum screaming about the anti-gay bias here and don't see it then you won't see it. That's your own bias.

How can you help us overcome a problem you don't believe in and can't see?

How can you help our community overcome a problem if you don't listen to our community when we shout about the problem and announce that it's here?

[Two Americas]

218. very interesting!

That answers a couple of questions that I had. Very good. Thanks.

So you see the deleted posts as evidence that "gays" have been "flaming." And you say that there are no anti-gay folks, and that you "haven't seen a one of them."

Fascinating. I suspected, and feared that this was the case.

That is another piece to the puzzle.

When we really discuss something, and can successfully create a climate that fosters that, then we can never know just whose contributions will help us see the entire picture. That is why I so strongly believe that discussion about this is so vital.

[ThomCat]

220. It is very enlightening that he immediately blames gay people

for arguments he hasn't read in posts that were deleted earlier. It says a lot that his first instict is to throw blame at one side.

But of course there is no homophobia here. Where just overreacting and imagining this. x(

[The Doctor.]

231. There you go again.

Why I waste my time on people who want to live in their fantasy worlds...

[ThomCat]

236. Fantasy worlds?

Really?

You're spending all this effort denying that there's any anti-gay people or language here at DU, against all the history here and all the things posted BY the LGBT community about it. And you're telling me that I'm living in a fantasy world?

:eyes:

[Two Americas]

233. yes

There is a double standard. It is not even hidden or disguised very well.

The truth is that the exact opposite happened. But people can't "see" what is there, and others are working to make sure they do not see it. Then people are free to speculate that "gays" must have been "flaming," and that no one ever expresses any hatred here. Obviously, people's perceptions are being distorted by their preconceptions. They are selectively editing reality - literally and figuratively - to fit in with and reinforce their prejudice.

One "gay" allegedly "flaming" is sufficient for smearing all.

But ten people relentlessly posting hatred isn't seen, or doesn't matter.

One gay person does not agree with us, and everything the rest of us say is therefore invalidated.

But ten straights post in support, and that is of no consequence and means nothing.

[The Doctor.]

229. Wow... you've got problems.

'Flaming is flaming' whether the posts are by gays, straights, or fucking aliens.

You've made it obvious that you're just here to stir it up, otherwise you wouldn't be working so hard at dividing people here.

[Two Americas]

235. we do

We have a problem.

Where have I flamed, stirred or divided? That is not my intention.

[The Doctor.]

243. Here;

""Look I support gay marriage and gay rights, and don't get me wrong I do not like Warren, but the gay people are making far too big a deal out of this, and are being hateful and bigoted themselves, and are acting in ways that are not good, which is driving away their supporters and hurting the party and therefore actually setting back their cause."

That is the anti-gay point of view here. "

Sometimes they're wrong to say that, sometimes they're right. In neither case does that make them 'anti-gay'. There are a lot of very angry, hateful gay folks... and for good reason. But engaging in irrational attacks on people, seeing insults that aren't there, really isn't helping anyone.

Creating an OP that calls DUers 'anti-gay', whether they're misguided or not, is deliberately divisive.

[ThomCat]

246. It is NEVER right to say this.

If the actions of the LGBT community are "driving away supporters" then they aren't supporters. They're posers.

Lots of people pose. They take up space and don't do a damned thing to really help. I've been in a lot of volunteer organizations including a few civil rights organizations and I can tell you first hand that getting rid of a few posers never hurt a movement.

Anyone who is going to be driven away because we hurt their poor little egos was never a supporter to begin with. They were just trying to look cool by having some LGBT friends.

If we listened to them, they'd hold us back. That's not help. That's not support. And if all they're going to do is hold us back, that's definitely anti-gay.

[Two Americas]

247. no

I called a point of view anti-gay.

If we cannot talk about ideas, we cannot talk about anything. Talking about a person's ideas is not an attack on them. It is at worst an attack on their ideas. That is what discussion is about.

[The Doctor.]

256. So you can be 'pro-gay' with an 'anti-gay' point of view?

And that shouldn't be insulting to the people you insinuate hold that 'point of view'?

Please stop, it's embarrassing.

Better yet, I'll just be done here for your sake.

[ThomCat]

237. No, you're the one stiring things up.

He's being reasonable. It's very funny that you don't see that.

It's amazing that a straight person who agrees with what the LGBT community has been saying is supposedly being divisive and stiring things up. So apparently that's what you think we're doing too.

But you're an ally. :eyes:

[The Doctor.]

241. Ummm... I'm not the one calling DUers 'anti-gay'. Nice of you to tell me what I'm allowed to take

exception to.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Someone can make sweeping accusations of homophobia on DU, call people that have been nothing but supportive, people like CaliforniaPeggy for Christ's sake, 'bigots', and that's just fine with you.

But for someone to take exception to deliberately divisive language? Oh no, we can't have that.


You're one twisted critter, ain't ya?

You are a waste of my time.

Good night.

[ThomCat]

244. One of the big privilages of the majority

is the privilage of never being called out on their prejudices.

Men can abuse women but can rarely be called sexist.
White people can be racist but can rarely be called racist.
Straight people can be anti-gay but can rarely be called homophobic.

Here where's it's more subtle,

Men can support sexism but can't be called sexist.
White people can support racism but can't be called racist.
Straight people can support homophobia but can't be called homophobic.

As long as it's veiled or sublte it's rude. You just can't call people out that way, and calling out the people in the majority is always more of a taboo than anything that's done to people in the minority.

So yes, in that regard I'm, divisive for using the term anti-gay a lot. I don't pull punches. I see it here, so I call it out. If that bothers you, so what.

[noiretextatique]

305. thank you, ThomCat

:applause: i've been in many battles with racists, sexists, and homophobes...right here on DU.
i always say: the chief privilege of privilege is DENIAL.

[Two Americas]

248. I did not

You are repeating a false accusation against me. In the segment of my post you cited I am very clearly describing a point of view, not people.

I am not calling DUers 'anti-gay.'

[ThomCat]

214. Bullshit.

He's one of the more reasoned and calm straight allies posting here. "Fire-starter?" Where the hell do you get that?

I'm continually amazed that people who claim to support us will then turn around and say that any sign of real support is flame bait. That's the hate. It's coming from your side in a real subtle form.

Your analogy assumes that the LGBT people speaking out are all the "crazy aunt," which assumes that there is this mass of more reasonable but silent LGBT people out there who agree with you and just quietly go along with whatever pleasant means straight people decide are okay for pursuing our rights. That's just so incredibly wrong.

You don't have the right to marginalize us, or tell us what's reasonable for pursuing our rights. If you're offended by how we pursue our rights then perhaps you're offended by our pursuit of our rights, not by our methods.

Any ally who is going to be too offended to help us isn't an ally. Because if the only way to succeed is to suck up to straight people and beg for support then we're doomed from the start.

Either you support us or you don't. None of this other bullshit.

[The Doctor.]

222. Calling people on DU 'anti-gay' is divisive. That's a simple fact.

What you call 'support' is actually just validation of your anger, misplaced or otherwise. Why else do you support such divisive language?

Calling friends and allies 'bigots' for daring to ask for reason is not 'pursuing your rights' no matter how righteous it makes you FEEL.

I support equal rights for everyone, and I'm on your side regardless of how you wish to perceive me.

[ThomCat]

225. Calling anti-gay people anti-gay is just laying it out on the table.

Pretending that things are rosy when they're not doesn't help anyone but the bigots.

Going along and playing nice to make the anti-gay people comfortable and happy doesn't help us get our civil rights. Our real allies know that.

Our real allies aren't offended. They're standing next to us and understand. We're not here to stroke your ego and make you feel good. That's not the purpose of the civil rights movement. The purpose of the movement is to achieve civil rights. Get that through your head.

You say you're on our side, then stop arguing that we should stop using our voices, and stop using our tactics. That's just telling us to shut up and play nice, and we won't do it.

Either stand with us or sit down. Those are your choices.

[Two Americas]

239. statements

Statements, not people.

No person who supports a cause, who opposes bigotry, would ever object to having their statements challenged. I welcome that. How else could I learn?

How can calling a person's comments bigoted be seen as divisive, but bigoted comments are not? Is that not the same logic as that behind the "reverse racism" arguments?

If you are truly, as you say, "on your side," then there should be no problem. Let's discuss this and clear up the misunderstanding.

[ThomCat]

242. I really think he wants to be right far more than he wants

to be helpful in any real way. His ego is engaged. I don't think you're going to get anywhere.

He has been known to be reasonable on other nights, but tonight he's not. And I doubt he realizes what a fool he's making of himself.

[racaulk]

307. Wow! Talk about "framing the other side."

Anyone told you lately that you can't discuss Warren because you're straight? Or that you should "get mad over Warren" just because you "are told to?" If so, please post up a link.

Go ahead, do it. I'll be anxiously awaiting your reply.

[Number23]

105. dmallind, you get today's...

I should have just read through the thread of this tired OP before posting my little comment below. We said very similar things.

[ThomCat]

132. It's weird that you would find that poorly writen, very flawed post

so important. :shrug:

You clearly have some very ingrained opinions you just want to have validated here. You don't seem to really read or consider any of the responses people write to you, nor do you really seem to care about the issues.

Why are you here?

[Number23]

137. Thom, the minute I take your opinion as gospel...

will be the minute this whole site comes crashing to the ground.

I agreed with the post. If you have a problem with that, too bad. You considered it poorly written and flawed. So what? What else can I say beyond that?

And why are you here, Thom?? And isn't the fact that I would ask you that question laughably stupid and presumptuous, as if I am posting on a damn web site for far more nobler, esoteric reasons than you are??

[Name removed]

144. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sniffa]

174. *plonk*

[readmoreoften]

118. Why do people with no argument always claim a successful OP is a "strawman" even if it isn't?

It's pretty much the ultimate strawman on DU. Someone thoroughly roasts someone else's pig and the roasted claims the argument is a mere 'strawman'. These claims of 'strawmanism' never dissect the argument and point to where the strawman appears. They never offer a more compelling argument to 'correct' the original. Never.

Your defensiveness is showing.

[The Doctor.]

198. Calling everyone who asks for reason 'anti-gay' is the strawman.

It's deliberately hyperbolic and inflammatory.

The fact is, very few people have told anyone that merely being upset over Warren is 'bigoted and hateful'. There are also very few 'bigoted and hateful' gays on DU. Using very rare examples as though they are common, and then setting up a false argument based on that exaggeration is not terribly genuine.

[dmallind]

258. Ooh another armchaiur psychologist!

I describe it as a strawman because I know what one is - a fake argumenr put forth as if from a debate opponents's point of view for the simple purpose of easily demolishing it. In this case the fake argument was essentially the snippage I excluded form the OPs own words. How much more dissection is neededthan to accurately identify a common fallacy? THe original was very easily corrected simply by using my snipped quote from it. If you can't see the strawman after that then look again.

[The Doctor.]

196. Dude... if you won't change a diaper, then you obviously eat babies.

Get with it.

[HamdenRice]

257. I almost stopped reading at the "anti-gay" side line. This is just more Orwellian nonsense.

It's an attempt to "define" one's way out of a debate about political strategy -- ie anyone who disagrees on Obama's strategy is "anti-gay."

There is so much false attribution of motive and intent to the other side of the debate that the OP is barely worth addressing.

You've done a great job of deconstructing it.

[Political_Junkie]

20. Thank you, again.

K & R

[racaulk]

21. Fantastic post!

You have presented many good points in a very thoughtful way. Thank you for posting this!

K&R

[Runcible Spoon]

29. You are an asset to DU

KnR.

[Starry Messenger]

33. Thank you Two Americas!

That made me cry a little.

[hfojvt]

34. what do you mean by 'you people'?

I do see people encouraging hate, and I don't care for that.
I do see people encouraging intolerance and binary thinking, and I don't care for that, even if the intolerance is only for the "intolerant (OTM)". Other Than Myself, since my own intolerance is righteous and justified.

As far as supporting allies. If I am at an anti-war march and one of my fellow marchers wants to start a fight with a pro-war rally, or to pick up bricks and smash windows of pro-war businesses, or goes carrying a picture of Chairman Mao, then we are not part of the same revolution. My own vote is for more peaceful methods and attitudes.

[Two Americas]

48. false equivalence

The two sides are not equal (that is the problem!) and should not be held to the same standards.

People on one side of the argument are having their ideas and attitudes challenged.

People on the other side of the argument are having their existence, their validity, their survival and their human rights challenged.

To portray the two as equal is to make an argument that is very similar to the "reverse racism" argument.

[hfojvt]

200. I think you exxagerate one side of the argument

and I don't buy a double standard no matter what excuse you give it. "I am a member of an oppressed group, so I don't have to be a decent person." or "I am on the side of an oppressed group so I don't have to be a decent person."

Don't you see how that fits into anybody making an excuse for why "the standards for others do not apply to me"?

[Two Americas]

208. this is an important issue

I am glad you are raising this. This is a debate that has arisen throughout history around every movement for social progress, so there is a broader more universal significance to this. This will help us to put this struggle into a powerful historical context.

Oppressed groups fighting for freedom and justice have always been accused by members of the dominant group of using their victim status as an excuse, and as a demand for "special rights" or some sort of special status or immunity.

That argument was used against the Suffragettes, against the Abolitionists and against the early leaders of organized Labor.

Before Emancipation, people said that since slaves were not all saints, and since not all masters were evil, that therefore those advocating for freedom should be respectful and retiring, and should stop agitating and making trouble. Since people imagined that the slaves would kill the masters given the opportunity, that then was used as an excuse to suppress any and all expressions of outrage over the ongoing injustice.

We should notice something about that, though. One good master was to be seen as enough evidence to "prove" that all masters were not bad, while one bad slave was sufficient evidence to "prove" that all slaves were not good. Since all slaves were not good, and all masters were not bad, therefore, they claimed, the Abolition side was not perfect and should not be casting stones.

One bad slave invalidated the aspirations of all. One good master excused all masters of guilt.

But it should be crystal clear to any sober observer that there was a powerful double standard at work there, and that the double standard was itself the main problem that needed to be overcome.

Another parallel between the two struggles, was that there was much outrage among the master class and their defenders - "how dare you accuse all of us of being inhuman monsters?"

In this way, people were persuaded that there was a greater danger from the slaves then from the masters, and that making critical statements about slavery was the same as making accusations against its supporters, and that these accusations were somehow as much of a problem, or more of a problem, then slavery itself was.

People in the 1850's said some of the same things about slavery that we now hear people saying here about this issue -

"Don't get me wrong, I oppose slavery, but they are going about it the wrong way and alienating their potential allies."

"I voted for the Whigs and they are a lot better than the Democrats on the slavery issue. Can't we enjoy our win?"

"Some people will never be happy, and are just agitating because they like to agitate."

"These things take time, but some people want change overnight."

"How dare you imply that I am supporting slavery? Just because I don't agree with you about how we should go about this, that does not give you the right to label me as pro-slavery."

"The people do not support Abolition. We need to reach out to the pro-slavery people and work with them. We'll get a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar."

[hfojvt]

250. ha, and of course I am a big fan of John Brown

or as he is sometimes called Osawatomie John Brown. Check my profile for residence.

However, I am not "accusing some group of claiming special status". You made that claim yourself "should not be held to the same standards." and I said 'nobody is above the law.'

Slavery is more like the Holocaust, based on violence and perpetuated with violence, they could only ended by violence. Missouri ruffians were using violence and illegal voting in their attempts to make Kansas into a slave state, and in another example which I have posted before, when they destroyed a press and killed a newspaper owner because of his anti-slavery writing.
edit, it was Elijah Lovejoy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1343514#1356056

There were also at least two pecuniary interests involved in perpetuating slavery. One, the money originally paid for the slaves, and two, the potential income available from slave labor. And it was the pro-slavery people who resorted to violence after they lost an election. And John Brown did not just fight back with violence of his own - he made himself into a martyr for the cause, a cause that did not personally affect him.

[Two Americas]

253. interesting

I have been a serious student of the Civil War era for 40 years. We will have to pick that up some time in the future.

There were quite a few pecuniary interests involved in perpetuating slavery, including the textile industry, banking and shipping.

There was a famous incident in Alton in 1837, when Elijah Parish Lovejoy was murdered and his press destroyed, but I presume you are talking about the sacking of Lawrence in 1856.

[Marrah_G]

86. You are saying both bigots and non-bigots have the same validity.

You are exactly the sort of poster the OP was aimed at....but of course, you can't see it.

[hfojvt]

194. I am saying that hatred of bigots just validates bigotry

After all the two groups agree that SOMEbody deserves to be hated. There's just a slight disagreement about who and for what reason.

I am supposed to see what? That some hatred is justified?

[Two Americas]

197. there is no evidence for that

Bigotry doesn't need an excuse. Bigotry always claims an excuse. But any excuse would do.

Resistance to hatred is not hatred. We never heard any concern about this before the election. No one said we should temper our rhetoric against president Bush or the Republicans, for fear of returning hatred for hatred. Why is this suddenly a concern now, and on this issue and only on this issue? Before the election, people posted "I hate the haters, I hate the bigots" and there was no backlash, in fact, posts like that were k and r-ed to the moon and cheered.

The idea that it is the victims who are provoking the perpetrator, and therefore somehow to blame, is a very dangerous doctrine. It is the argument of the abuser and of those siding with the abuser. "Maybe if you didn't burn dinner he wouldn't beat you" someone might say, and then when challenged on that they might say "how dare you accuse me of siding with the abuser? Keep that up and I will no longer support you at all and you will have only yourself to blame. You are the one who is the hater, by accusing me of siding with the abuser."



.

[hfojvt]

221. I can see you claiming excuses and using bad analogies

This analogy of victim and perpetrator does not work. Not for me anyway. In this analogy somebody becomes a perpetrator not by beating the crap out of somebody on a regular basis, but by making a statement. Aha, now some people are victims of this statement or statements. And it's not even a statement like "I hate these people" or "these people should be killed or jailed".

Ironically a deleted sub-thread in this thread provides a ready example for me.

One person called another a 'silly straight boy' in a 200 word rebuttal. That person responds with calling the first person a 'fu$%ing bigot' and then also attacked those who applauded the rebuttal as 'bigots too' or defenders of bigotry. However, logically, if it is hateful to call somebody a 'silly straight boy' because of something they said, then it is at least as bad to call somebody a 'fu$%ing bigot' because of something that person said. Nor do I buy a 'first blood' defense that says 'because they drew first blood, it is okay for me to respond with total ferocity because I became a victim when they struck first'.

and if you never heard anything about hatred, then you have not been reading my journal. It's not new for me to preach against hatred.

edited to add

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/23 - arguing against pure hatred of Michelle Malkin

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/35 - arguing for logical arguments rather than invective

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/6 - arguing for sharing knowledge rather than snide remarks

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/48 - musing about the problem of people who attack not just beliefs or errors, but the people holding them

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/51 - complaining about hatred of Pelosi and the Democratic Party

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/75 - this might be an ironic note as I complain in primary season that Clinton supporters refuse to debate or argue facts, but just demand that critics of Clinton "shut up, shut up, shut up"

[Two Americas]

251. not following you now

I am glad that you are speaking out against hatred.

Not quite understanding the rest of your post.

[ThomCat]

223. So if we all just decide to love the bigots they'll stop being bigots?

:rofl:

If someone was out to take away your humanity, your basic civil rights, and they were succeeding I think you'd wake up and find some anger too.

[hfojvt]

254. that isn't what I meant, although there is some validity

First of all, what's a bigot?

Is it 0101010101 binary?
0 - total non bigot
1 - total bigot

or is it 0123456789
0 - total non bigot
9 - total bigot
in between, a gray area.

Most people are not perfect, and will have a little bit of bigotry in them. Of course, in their eyes, it is not bigotry because it is justified. The people I hate somehow or other, DESERVE to be hated.

Let's say, for example that on this scale that you are a 1, about as good as any person can get in regard to being free of prejudice. Maybe I am a 4 and Rick Warren is a 6 and Fred Phelps is a 9.

The question is, can people learn and improve, move down the scale? If so, how does that happen? I claim that hatred does not help. The logical human response to hatred is to hate back. I understand that response, even if I do not encourage it as the right thing to do.

In his Christmas sermon, Warren said that he heard somebody on the radio say "I wish Rick Warren was dead". He went on to say that hearing that convinced him that he was wrong to support proposition 8.

Except he didn't really. He said he was offended, and I cannot blame him.

If we want to win things like Proposition 8 votes. If we want candidates to say "I support gay marriage" and not get obliterated at the polls like they would in probably 60% of Congressional districts, then we need large numbers of people to be won over to our side. I think the Martin Luther King method is better at that than the Malcolm X method.

[ThomCat]

255. Martin Luthor King was a radical who marched in the streets

and offended a whole lot of people. He didn't wait for approval to get his rights. He organized and didn't care if white people were offended about how quickly he wanted his rights. He is the one who famously said "Rights delayed are rights denied"

As for loving bigots, all that does is make it easy for them to step on you while they continue to be bigots. Gay bashings don't stop because the victims are nice. Our rights don't materialize because we ask politely. People don't stop using slurs and bigoted language because they love us. It doesn't work that way.

If we make progress it's by pushing, and that involved challenging people, and offending some sensibilities that are used to the prejudicial ways.

A whole lot of effort keeps going into justifying why we need to find nice quiet, friendly, patient ways to ask and beg for our eventual rights. I can't tell you how disgusting that is! x(

[AlCzervik]

43. another magic thread, the more replies it gets the shorter it becomes! shamwow!

[sniffa]

46. I just lost about 6 posts or more in that train wreck

The "real bigots"

[AlCzervik]

47. no kidding, i posted and poof!

[Starry Messenger]

49. It's in my files.

:)

[sniffa]

52. Awesome

:D

[LostinVA]

57. Mine too

[leftstreet]

56. God smote a few of my posts too

:cry:

[Two Americas]

60. it really is unfair

A handful of people can disrupt and control the discussion. If they see a post they don't like, and more importantly do not want the membership here to read - all they need to do is post a bunch of nonsensical but highly inflammatory stuff in response and they can get the entire subthread deleted.

[leftstreet]

65. It's okay, Collateral Damage. I'm happy to see the thread still here

:hi:

And the Mods figured out a way to salvage it.

[Two Americas]

66. they have a tough job

I didn't mean to criticize the mods.

[leftstreet]

68. ...

I knew you weren't criticizing them.

I've seen threads become so toxic, so fast all the Mods can do is throw the last can of gasoline on the pile.

But the Mods are clearly all sober today and on their toes!

:o

[TrogL]

119. Yeah, I used to mod when I was drunk

Banning Skinner was probably a bit over the edge.

Wonder why they never return my "I wanna be a mod again" emails anymore. :shrug:

[QC]

73. And nothing ever--EVER--happens to the flamebaiters.

Hmmmm. Maybe that's why they flame to their hearts' content. Maybe they know nothing will ever be done about it.

[racaulk]

82. Ding!

I fully expect nothing to come of what happened in the deleted subthread above. He'll be back tomorrow with more bullshit I'm sure, acting as if nothing happened.

[sniffa]

90. I'm sure he rushed off to start a playful, empty thread in the Lounge

See, all better.

[racaulk]

151. Not to worry.

I'm sure he'll post some flamebait screed of an OP in GDP soon enough.

[Two Americas]

83. double standard

On the missing subthread, we were talking about the double standard. It is much more pervasive than I realized until recently. Certainly, only good can come from us looking at the double standard and discussing it.

[ThomCat]

94. It is a RULE when you're dealing with issues of prejudice.

What the members of the majority do to disrupt ALWAYS get judged more leniently than what members of the minority do.

Whether it is deliberate or accidental is irrelevant. It's as true here as anywhere. So straight and/or homophobic people can get away with being incredibly disruptive, but LBGT people get deleted (or tombstoned) for much less.

The same is true of issues of sexism. Men and/or sexist people can get away with far more than feminists without getting deleted or tombstoned.

That's because if you're in the majority it's not considered disruption or agitation. It's allowed to just be your opinion. But if you're in the minority, often your opinion is held to tougher standards of scrutiny because you're challenging the norm, you're challenging people.

That sounds too... starchy... I guess. But we should always expect that the bigots will have more free reign here than we do. It has always been true and it will always be true. This is a forum of straight white people, for straight white people, by straight white people. We saw it today in which posts the mods chose to delete until we complained, and we'll see it again and again.

[Two Americas]

98. that is a really good post

I think that if a community is going to be dedicated to political and social change, we should be alert to the fact that the things we most need to hear are also the same things that may cause the greatest amount of discomfort for people.

That is why it is so important to defend dissenters, and why it is so disturbing to see dissenters mocked and ridiculed.

[Luminous Animal]

178. Actually, not starchy at all but spot on...

chiming in hours later after a long day of work, but this post could be a springboard to mod retraining.

[Zhade]

164. Don't be so sure. I got that bigoted motherfucker "petgoat" banned.

NT!

[QC]

170. Excellent! n/t

[Shakespeare]

63. Geez--I just saw this and missed the deleted stuff, but the OP is eloquent & spot on.

I continue to be baffled that some STILL don't understand the real issue at heart here.

[Two Americas]

71. we lost many good posts

I hope we can rekindle the discussion.

[racaulk]

54. !!!

:rofl:

[yardwork]

44. Very good. Thank you. k&r.

Reconciliation can only happen in an environment of mutual respect and listening. I'm willing to listen.

[sniffa]

45. The Straight Hate around DU is appalling

[PVnRT]

51. It's like a Klan rally or something! Et cetera! Et cetera!

[racaulk]

53. You people are no better than Fred Phelps or Anita Bryant!

GAH!!!

:eyes:

[Marrah_G]

87. ~blink~

[unapatriciated]

273. .

:rofl:

sniffa you are fast becoming my favorite poster.
short, not so sweet but hitting the nail on the head.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Yes We Did]

61. K&R

[Rabrrrrrr]

67. If the Warrenist-junta had been in charge in the 50s, there'd be no civil rights for blacks yet.

"The time, it just ain't right yet, give it another decade, we don't wanna cause no ruckus here"

Fuck that.

[ThomCat]

72. That's exactly right.

Somehow, the right time would always be just another generation away.

Fuck that.

[McCamy Taylor]

76. They were in charge. It was the Supreme Court that started things.

Congress did not start passing laws until the TV stations showed the southern police turning dogs and fire hoses on school children.

Concerned citizens must continue to speak out not matter who tells them not to. And why on earth does anyone listen to the voices of those who say "hush"? If someone said "Don't talk about class issues, it might upset the moderates", would we not talk about workers' right? Hell no! If they said "lay off immigration?" Actually, they did say that two years ago, and so I blogged and blogged about immigration until no one was afraid to denounce the GOP.

Every time you detect anyone in the Democratic Party or the progressive movement who seems reluctant to discuss an issue that relates to human liberation that is a sign that you should talk louder and longer .

I think maybe it is easier to dissuade some people from joining this discussion because of the nature of the topic and people's fears about talking about "sex"---the forbidden fruit.

[noiretextatique]

80. thanks for making this point...one i have been making over and over

some people don't quite grasp that segregation ended mostly because of court decisions, not the good will of the majority.

[Rabrrrrrr]

85. Absolutely! And waiting for the "good will" of the majority is pretty hopeless.

The majority rarely lets in the minority without being forced to do so.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

126. Exactly!

Equal rights is not an issue that should be left up for the majority to decide.

[GinaMaria]

279. and no one's rights should be left up to popular vote! eom

[Two Americas]

202. hi noiretblu

Long time, no see. Good to see you.

I posted something earlier that I think applies here, but it was in one of the sabotaged sub-threads.

"I don't care whether or not a person likes me, so long as they do not have the power to harm me."

The idea that people are expressing - that somehow because they "like gays" and do not "like Warren," or say that they do, that this is all we need to know - is based on a false premise. That false premise then leads them to see the solution to "your problem" as being a matter of getting everyone to feel the way that they do. That is certain to fail, and too many people are OK about failing. It do9esnlt directly impact them. Since the "solution" is to convert millions of people to feel a different way, that puts off any solution indefinitely. We can always claim to be "working on it" and use that as an excuse. Putting it off indefinitely is a cowardly way to support failure, and the illusion that progress is being made in baby steps is just cover for that cowardice.

But it works the other way. First there is oppression, and then bigotry arises to justify it. Eliminate the oppression, and the bigotry can then be eliminated.

People are taking an easy way out - seeing bigotry, and politics, as a matter of their personal feelings. They can then think that if only "every one were good like I am, then there would be no problem." There work is for the most part done, in other words. There is nothing else for them to think about, and they get angry if anyone suggests that there might be. That is much more about them then it is about the people they claim to support. Claiming to feel the right way about the issue costs nothing, risks nothing and contributes nothing. It can be used, though, as cover for expressing the very bigoted attitudes that they are supposedly against.

[noiretextatique]

303. hi two americas

i'm nursing a stupendous hangover today, but i wanted to let you know how much i appreciate all your fine consciousness raising work on this topic. i totally agree with you...i could care less who likes me, but i do care about those you have the power to harm me.
when i am thinking more clearly, i will post again :hi:

[Luminous Animal]

179. Excellent post! (n/t)

[defendandprotect]

199. Great post -- really agree with you --!!!

:)

[Marrah_G]

88. BINGO

Either you think Equality is worth fighting for or you don't.

I am truly sick of the PC speech followed up by a shove under the proverbial bus.

[EstimatedProphet]

77. This was an excellent post

I'm sorry you had to put up with such vile attacks on it.

[ElboRuum]

89. Interesting...

"People then get angry when any of us refuse to ignore the second part of the statement, and instead insist upon examining and discussing that part of the argument. Why can that not be discussed without people getting angry and hostile, and demanding that it cease? What is threatened by that?"

To answer your question (granted, with another)... why is it one cannot ask a person/group to dial down the veiled (and not-so-veiled) intimations of homophobia/obstructionism/et al long enough to actually DO what you're suggesting and discuss, like rational, functional, well-adjusted adults without being accused of...

a) diminishing the plight of the offended
b) attempting to squelch the debate by denying the offended the "right" to be angry and vocal
c) attempting to derail political discourse in general (why do you hate America?)

I can't speak for everyone, only myself, but the only thing I'd ever wanted in the "debate" about the Warren issue is that those most offended not look upon those not expressing what they consider to be an appropriate amount of outrage as in some way their enemy, and that those on the other side fatigued at being told the onerous line "if you ain't with us you're agin' us" refrain from losing it all over the place and making matters worse.

Thus far, your call to "reconciliation" has been attempted by many. All to no avail.

But I suggest to you this:

This subject cannot be discussed rationally even though you and I both agree that some reconciliation would be welcome and due around here.

As a bit of evidence, I offer this:

Why was it not possible to state this without using the first part of the post to frame the so-called "anti-gay" side of the "debate" as the heavy? Kind of an interesting way to offer the conciliatory olive branch, don't you think? Inside a closed fist to the jaw?

Although you've switched the order of the statement parts, aren't you hoping people on that side of the debate ignore the first part of your OP and just attend the second? Shall we debate the first part, or are we threatened? Hostility is woven into the OP and it speaks of reconciliation? Come on. Hypocrisy makes every fair-minded person hostile. That's WHY we're having this debate here, aren't we? Because in the minds of some, Obama's choice to give Warren a place in the inaugural WAS hypocrisy.

The point is that both "sides" of this "debate" will create hypocrisy with impunity so long as tempers run hot.

Meh. No matter. I gave up this philosophical boondoggle some time ago. The juggernaut of righteous anger doesn't see reason and I'm not really interested in getting trampled by it in its blindness.

[sniffa]

93. "so-called "anti-gay" side of the "debate" as the heavy"

Because they are.

My favorites on the heavy side are the ones who think (some don't but claim to) they're helping. Then there are the ones who are just being cruel.

[ElboRuum]

95. Actually, THERE'S the problem.

And I'm glad you pointed it out.

There is no debate here. There is no reconciliation here. Functionally, there are people who were offended beyond belief by the Warren pick, and then there are people who offended beyond belief the people offended beyond belief by the Warren pick because they were NOT offended beyond belief. You've already made up your mind. Debate is not possible without accepting the possibility that your side may be in error, however unlikely that may be.

So fuck it. Let everyone piss out their anger, and leave me the hell out of it.

[sniffa]

99. Because there is nothing to debate

Bye

[ElboRuum]

281. Exactly.

Which makes the entire concept of reconciliation and debate really half-baked, doesn't it?

And I don't participate in one-sided discussions.

[Marrah_G]

102. Civil rights should not be up to debate- nor should they be voted on

Unless of course you don't really consider them civil rights.

If you consider it just a plea from a special interest group then there is room for debate.

[ElboRuum]

289. Real world says otherwise.

"Woulda, coulda, shoulda" just isn't going to get it done and you know it. Since when did we not have to fight for our rights against those who would repress them? Since when were they just freely acknowledged? Because the real world operates differently from this fantasy world where everything comes up primrose and poppy fields, I suggest that there IS room for discussion on this very topic.

[ThomCat]

109. If you stay "the hell out of it."

then you are accepting that,

1. the homophobia is not worth a response and not worth being angry about
2. civil rights is not worth fighting for
3. you don't care what all of this means to LGBT people.

So, fine, stay the hell out of it. But items 1, 2, and 3 above are a pretty good working definition of Homophobic.

Straight people are free to stay isolated in their nice safe straight world, but part of our strategy is that we won't let people continue to blindly thing they aren't homophobic when they really are.

[ElboRuum]

319. It is just this sort of absolutism...

...that I reject on face.

Reasonable people have better things to do than listen to this sort of inflammatory nonsense.

[Number23]

108. "The juggernaut of righteous anger doesn't see reason..."

"...and I'm not really interested in getting trampled by it in its blindness."

Honey, join the club... righteous or not...

[ThomCat]

111. Without righeous anger there can be no justice.

We will not passively accept injustice just because it makes other people more comfortable.

[Number23]

114. I honestly don't believe that anyone has asked you to.

I certainly have not and never would.

[ThomCat]

117. We have been asked to passively accept a lot, many times here.

I posted below about how often we hear the phrase "alienating your allies" from straight people here at DU. It's always used as a way of saying that we should be nicer to straight people so that straight people will like us and want to help us.

But what's always missing is any sense of straight people doing anything to help. It's always used to get us to do less, say less, offend less. It's a stop sign that's put in front of us to slow us down by our supposed straight allies.

We can always tell who our real allies are when that phrase comes out. Our real allies don't get alienated when we speak out. They're speaking out with us.

Our real allies aren't telling us to sit down. They're organizing with us.

Or real allies aren't telling us not to offend people. They're helping us make people think and realize what's going on.

So, maybe you haven't seen people tell us to passively accept injustice, but perhaps you haven't been looking. It has happened a lot here at DU, and there are a lot of us who are really pissed off about it.

[Number23]

128. Your "real allies." lol Thom, best of luck to you.

I really don't know what anyone can say to someone who has their mind made up so tightly about everything. Actually, I have some ideas but I already know what result will come out of it.

[Zhade]

180. Clearly, you're more interested in being "right" (you're not) than fighting for our rights.

Therefore, it's quite apparent you're not an ally.

[ThomCat]

182. If you could see the deleted posts

Oh, you would definitely know how right you are.

[Zhade]

184. I don't doubt it for one second.

NT!

[Two Americas]

193. hey Zhade

Good to see you.

It is a shame, because so many are denying that there is any anti-gay hatred and bigotry here, and are saying "I just don't know what you people are so upset about." If people could have seen those posts, they would never again doubt that there is in fact ugly hatred and bigotry here, nor would they ever wonder again why people are upset.

[ElboRuum]

283. Well, that's a stretch.

Care to elaborate on the reasoning behind that statement? Justice can't happen without righteous anger? Funny, our judicial system seems to work quite well without a profusion of that.

[Two Americas]

112. good question

We would first need the slavemaster to put down the whip and unlock the shackles. Only then could we talk about the angry responses from the ones who are shackled.

My opening was not an olive branch inside a closed fist for a couple of reasons. First, I am talking about thinking that many straight progressives and liberals are falling prey to, and as a straight I am not talking about people in a group to which I don't belong. Secondly, I have no power to harm people who are making that argument, and no inclination or desire to do so. Lastly, I am speaking for people who, as a minority, do not hold the power in this discussion.

I am not opposed to discussing the first part of the statement. I am talking about using that to avoid talking about the second part of the statement.

The anger from the two sides is not equal, because the two sides are not equal. Were they, there would be no issue for us to be discussing.

Can you see that this is a much bigger issue than people merely being "offended" and that characterizing it that way us something of an insult?

The plight of the offended is being diminished - if only by characterizing them being persecuted as them being merely "offended" if by nothing else.

I strongly believe that their is an attempt to squelch the debate, and an attemmpt to deny the offended the "right" to be angry and vocal. You put the word right in quotation marks, as though a person's right to be heard just as anyone else is a trivial or imaginary idea. Putting the word "right" in quotation marks when talking about someone else's right to be heard and respected is diminishing them.

I hope you do not think that I am angry or trying to trample anyone. I am not.

[ElboRuum]

286. On balance I agree.

However, I must take issue with the idea that people have a "right" to be angry and vocal in ways that harm others. I don't believe in the concept of civility through violence. Some do. I call them "batshit loony". I believe that people who perceive themselves as having that right also perceive themselves as having the right to invoke harm against others in retribution for being wronged.

Now you might disagree with this assessment. You may make statements to the contrary stating that this is just an expression of anger and it hurts no one. But what right do you or anyone else sympathetic to this idea of the "right" of anger and volubility to determine the level of hurt one must feel? This is the crux of the argument that the GLBT community feels hurt at a level determined among its membership and no straight person has the right to say what is and what isn't enough. So why doesn't THAT work both ways? Why must the other party accept the idea that there are two positions available to them: full agreement or shut the fuck up? I don't think you are so obtuse as to believe that any person with any personal dignity at all would accept that willingly, in fact I think many wouldn't accept it at all.

I don't think you are the angry party trying to trample anyone. But neither does the GLBT community intend this result. But when you unleash a juggernaut, it knows not what it hurts, it cares not who it hurts, in fact it does not even try to hurt. It just does so by virtue of what it is. My conjecture is that I can blame no one for not stepping out of its way. No one likes to be beaten down or shamed, especially if one has done nothing overt to deserve it, other than express one's view.

"Can you see that this is a much bigger issue than people merely being "offended" and that characterizing it that way us something of an insult?"

No, actually, I can't. No one ever portrays it from any position other than from behind the veil of hurt. I'm, of course, being a bit hyperbolic and more than a little facetious, but yes, I know what the issue is. But it IS THE ANGER which prevents what you propose. When the anger subsides, reason may be tapped and will once again be welcome. Until then, I shall give the juggernaut its wide berth until it has run out of steam.

If this makes me a bad person, well, so be it.

[Two Americas]

293. well...

I don't see the danger you see - a juggernaut of angry gays growing and getting out of control and trampling over all of us.

I don't see how people are harmed, either.

I think people's egos are bruised, that is all. They are not actually being harmed by angry gays.

I don't think this is about "levels of hurt" nor about what level night be appropriate, and what level might not.

I think that the Warren dispute has revealed hatred and bigotry here. I think that too many are unwilling to face this, for a variety of reasons - their hopes for the new administration, their loyalty to Obama, their self-image as a progressive person. I think that is the issue.

My recommendation is that we talk about it. People are resistant to that - extremely so. That is why the issue will not go away.

[ElboRuum]

318. The juggernaut...

... is not gay. The juggernaut is the idea that rage in its righteous form abeys civility. You don't see how people are harmed because you are not harmed. You agree that the juggernaut is due its pound of flesh. You grotesquely underestimate that community that is not gay. We come here because equality is the watchword, not in spite of it. The entire argument HAS ABSOLUTELY BEEN about levels of hurt, although perhaps the nuance is different to you. I suggest we don't talk about it, because as so many have offered, what the fuck is there to talk about? As a wise Cylon once said to a query about how you can alter one side of a bargain, he correctly observed "when there is no other side."

If there is no other side, at least allow me to enjoy the sublime nothingness that is distinctly mine.

[Still Sensible]

97. An outstanding post, and I get it because I am among those

that believes the way you articulated the argument in the quote paragraph is correct. Having said that, there are those who immediately start flaming us when we express that view.

I am pro marriage equality. I have a gay child and I love her more than anything in the world. I am fully supportive of the agenda and in a perfect world that equality would come right now. Unfortunately, I don't think we can get there all at once or immediately.

I have never and would never attack our gay posters. Whenever I have expressed my view I have done so very much as you described and in the spirit of deeply wanting the GLBT community to move toward full equal rights as fast as possible. But when I get flamed, or accused of being a bigot--not because I disagree with the idea that they should have equal rights, but because I disagree with someone's approach to gain those rights--yes it does make me mad.

IMHO, Prop 8 in California is just more evidence of how far we have to go. To put it another way, if you can't pass marriage equality in California, where can you?

When all of us have worked so hard to put an end to the Bush years and get a democrat back in the White House, it does rankle when so many here seem to already be accusing Obama of somehow betraying them or democratic principles.

I expect Obama will do away with DADT in the military very quickly. He can do that by executive order, I believe, much as Truman "ended" discrimination in the military in the same manner. I will tell you, having grown up as an army brat in the 60s, real racial equality in the military came at least a couple decades after Truman's edict. And, as in just about any segment of society, there still remains small pockets of vehement bigotry in the military.

As the Obama administration gets underway, we absolutely should be respectfully pushing the new president to move as expeditiously as possible on this and other progressive issues. We elected a pragmatic leader and I know that's not good enough for some. But if we abandon this promising individual so soon, I am afraid we'd only be setting our causes back.

[Zhade]

183. You've got prop 8 backwards -- we HAD marriage equality, and bigots voted to strip us of that right.

NT!

[Still Sensible]

189. You are right about what prop 8 did, but

it doesn't change the point i was making.

[AntiFascist]

100. Uh, did my K&R post just get deleted?!

Amaze-o-vac!

(I hate it when mods exercise their power sarcastically)

[Ichingcarpenter]

101. kick nominated.... n/t

[Number23]

103. Where is your reconciliation?

All I see is you chastising one side of this argument.

And what you fail to understand is that, there are gay people here, on DU, who have REPEATEDLY said the exact same things that you are only attributing to straight people. That Warren is not the beginning and end of gay rights. That they are not happy with Warren but that they will wait to see the policies that Obama creates before castigating him. Are those folks who ARE gay but aren't screaming and anguished over Warren "anti-gay" (to use your expression) too?

When gay posters have said these things, they have been called every name in the world including "Aunt Thomasina" or some other idiocy. And see, it is THIS type of behavior that has lead so many here to walk away from this issue, at least on DU. It's one thing to scream at me, a heterosexual, pro-gay rights woman, but when you scream at others who have the same dog in the fight as you do because they have the audacity to see things from another perspective, that is one thing that has rendered this entire conversation unbearable for me and countless others.

This insistence that you and a few others have that all of the name-calling and insensitivity is only coming from one side is dishonest and ridiculous. To be honest, MOST of the sh*t I've seen on this issue has been dishonest and ridiculous.

[AntiFascist]

107. I called them "Uncle Tom" and I stand behind that n/t

[Number23]

110. And you have every right to do so.

And I'm sure that they stand by every single time they called you a fool... and they have every right to as well.

[AntiFascist]

113. I don't recall getting called that until now n/t

[ThomCat]

115. There are always tokens that can be rolled out

who say, "Listen to the nice oppressors. Someday they'll be nice and let us be free."

They have never been right before. I am not counting on them being right now. We get our rights by standing up and demanding them, and by demanding that straight people stand with us.

If Obama stands with us, that's awesome! But we can't and won't stand around and wait passively.

I'm really sick of how many times I've seen straight people chide us with the expression "alienating your allies" here at DU, as if we will win our civil rights is a popularity contest!

Any allies who can be alienated were not our allies to begin with. They didn't know, care, or understand what we're fighting for, and only stood with us to to stroke their own egos about how cool they are. If they got offended and stopped standing with us when it wasn't cool anymore, so be it. They weren't really our allied anyway.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AntiFascist]

123. We have a large number of great allies here at DU...

many of them are staying out of these threads because, frankly, this is an argument that only we as members of the LGBT community can make very effectively.

Edit: I should add, Two Americas is a fabulous exception.

[ThomCat]

124. That is true.

[Two Americas]

125. why?

Why is discussing this "unbearable?"

Whether or not a person is gay does not matter. People are people. I am straight. Does that mean that all straights who disagree with me are therefore wrong because "not all straights agree" with me? You are asking us to hold people in the minority group to a different standard then we hold people to who are in the majority group. One person in the minority group agreeing with those in the majority group supposedly invalidates everyone in the minority group, but if that worked the same way with the majority group my post would invalidate everyone from the majority group who are saying to get over this - because I am straight and I do not agree with that.

I could claim that since I am saying as a straight that we should not get over it, therefore those saying that we should get over it are not speaking for all straights, therefore their opinion is invalid. That would be absurd, and I am not saying that. But you are when you say that some gay people think we should get over it, therefore gays who are saying we should not do not get over it do not speak for the entire gay community, so therefore their opinions are invalid.

It is this double standard that I think we need to talk about. Why not? What is the harm?

[Number23]

134. Why ask why?

As I said, it is apparent that many gays are NOT outraged over Warren. Many heterosexuals ARE. Your insistence that it's only heterosexuals who are saying "what's the big damn deal about Warren?" is dishonest. That is my point.

I am literally kicking myself for even saying ANYTHING in this thread because I am BEYOND wishing to discuss Rick Warren with anyone on this damn web site. And not because it's not a relevant issue, it most certainly is. But the dishonesty, hysteria and hypocrisy on DU over Rick Warren has worn me OUT. Even if the man was stabbed 37 times in the chest by a member of his congregation, or went to jail for having 12 underage wives, I still wouldn't want to hear about it here. I am not trying to be rude to you, but this OP and many responses within are indicative of the truly pathetic level of discourse on the Warren issue, which is probably why many here will avoid these conversations like the plague. I had been too. I don't know why I didn't today.

[Zhade]

186. You just did what the poster accused you of doing.

You're a hypocrite.

[Two Americas]

195. that does not make sense

I am not insisting that "it's only heterosexuals who are saying 'what's the big damn deal about Warren?.'" Many are, though.

I said that it shouldn't matter.

I don't understand why, if you are tired of the Warren threads, you post on them. My post is about reconciliation, not about Warren. Warren just happens to the the subject that unleashed a tidal wave of hatred and bigotry here.

[readmoreoften]

130. Give me both sides of the argument for crushing the testicles of infants.

John Yoo can. That's the beauty of detached rhetorical debate. You can debate anything. But when it comes to crushing the genitals of YOUR infant, of YOUR son, of YOUR DAUGHTER, of YOUR wife, I doubt you'd make a very good argument.

There is dishonesty in every appeal for diplomacy and 'reason' when one side can wield a brutal power against the other's very survival. Rick Warren insinuated that people like me are similar to pedophiles. Anyone who says there are two sides to that argument is a threat, however distant, to the physical safety of myself and those I love.

I really don't care about "name-calling" or "civility". What matters is whether or not the names are justifed. Connecting me to pedophilia is not justified. Calling some DUers racist, anti-gay, sexist, or bigoted can be quite justified.

So give me a good explanation for why your sons' testicles should be crushed to make you talk for the good of the nation (no matter that you are 'innocent'--many in Gitmo are equally innocent) and I'll give you a good explanation why I should warmly welcome people who call me a pedophile for the good of the nation.

[sniffa]

156. You see when there is reconciliation

it usually involves the wrong side either coming to terms with their errors or being convicted for them.

It may come or not but I don't give a fuck anymore. I'm plonking this place back into a nice message board on my end.

[Zhade]

185. Yeah, you REALLY seem supportive of our rights.

NT!

[yowzayowzayowza]

116. Your "anti-gay point of view" does...

not describe my position atall, but we've already been thru that.

[Two Americas]

127. ok

This subject may not be of interest to you, then.

[Fearless]

152. Join the club.

:eyes:

[Celeborn Skywalker]

122. Excellent post, my friend.

As I learned a few weeks ago, there is a time when it is best to just shut up and listen to why people are upset. I wish people who don't mind Warren giving the invocation would stop lecturing for a while and listen to what their LGBTQ brothers and sisters are going through.

K&R

:dem:

[Two Americas]

129. that is all

It is not much to ask for, and should not be so controversial.

[Toasterlad]

150. Seriously, That Is ALL I Want

But there are MANY straight people here who feel compelled to tell gay people to shut up every time something like this comes up.

[MellowDem]

138. One thing...

While YOU may very well feel that gay issues are a priority, the REALITY is that the vast majority of Americans DO NOT. Now, some DUers have tried to articulate this. Gay civil rights ARE very important to GLBTers, and they're very important to me. But I know that they are not a big deal for the rest of America. I think we should keep trying to change that opinion, but in the meantime, when a DUer says that you may be hurting your cause, they are not being anti-gay. They have their own opinion of what's the fastest way to ensure equal rights for everyone. And it's not a gay/straight divide either. My coworker is a lesbian, and we have talked about the Warren issue. She says that she understands Warren's selection politically, though doesn't personally agree with it. However, she doesn't feel it is a big deal in the big picture of gay rights, and actually criticized others who were much more incensed than her. She thought it wasn't helping. Is she anti-gay? (or anti-lesbian in this case?)

You are using a "with us or against us" attitude with this issue. I understand why you would. GLBTers have had increasingly heightened expectations over the last couple of years, and the passage of issue 8 and Warren's selection feel like insanity when many felt we had finally come far enough as a country. It's a horrible disappointment, and I don't blame you for your reaction, or the way you are using such "good" and "evil" categories to describe even your allies. It is understandable, but please also know that it's not without its own cost.

[AntiFascist]

142. Some gays and lesbians don't understand the fight for marriage equality...

they feel that civil unions should be good enough. Some gays and lesbians don't mind at all being preached to that their relationships are not as sacred as that between a man and a woman. They accept this as a matter of course and compromise. I might call these people "Aunt Thomasians," but that's me.

[unapatriciated]

276. you are correct on that...

my daughter was ok with civil unions(she didn't care if the rw approved of her) and didn't see the need to push for full equality. Now with all her rights stripped away she understands.
There is no such thing as separate but equal when it comes to civil rights.

[Toasterlad]

147. Your Lesbian Friend Must LOVE Obama

She's totally bought into the whole "politically expedient" bullshit.

If she understood that the Warren pic was indicative of Obama's entire view of gay issues, she might realize it's actually a pretty big deal. Or maybe not. Maybe she's just one of those gays happy to sit in the back of the bus (or under the tires) until Straighty decides to toss a few rights our way.

And gay rights is VERY MUCH a "with us or against us" thing.

[ThomCat]

153. Yes. Very much so.

There will always be people who don't look beyond bar scene. As long as they can go out and live their life they're fine and don't have any desire to go any further.

But the existence of those people does not and cannot negate the fight for real civil rights. We'll accept them and party with them and bring them with us. We won't leave them behind. But we won't let them hold us back.

And we certainly won't let straight people use the complacency of those people as an excuse to hold us back.

[Toasterlad]

162. Word

:toast:

[unapatriciated]

280. nor should we straights allow them to hold back true equality....

my daughter is young and wasn't really affected until prop 8. Now she understands all the "preaching" i have done to get her more involved. All of us straights, gays, women and men should continue to fight for true equality of all.
Separate but equal is not equality and should never be accepted.

[BlooInBloo]

139. What reconciliation? It was a craptacular decision...

And some people felt it sufficed to make Obama comparable to nazis.

Some did not feel that it was up to that level - though it was nevertheless craptacular.

There's not likely to be any reconciliation on that. Those who allege it's a nazi-level of shittacularity generally have *other* reasons for taking it to such absurd levels.

[Toasterlad]

146. Fail.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zorra]

140. It would have been better if Obama had selected a card carrying KKK preacher.

That would really prove that he was serious about inclusion.
:sarcasm:

[Toasterlad]

145. So Very Well Said, And I Admire Your Patience and Sensitivity

I wish I could be that calm and collected about this. But when I see that people are still going out of their way to attack your post, it reminds me why I'm angry with many people here.

[Fearless]

149. You hold no knowledge of the eccentricities of human expression.

Clearly. You do not get it. My way or the highway will tear us all apart. It will not procure equality if you continue to alienate and divide others.

[Cherchez la Femme]

252. Were you in the south in the 60's?

Or were you even born then?

Your way would have worked real well for black people's procurement of civil rights, oh yeah. We'd still have 'Separate But Equal', lot's of promises to hang on, it'll happen someday, and of course no Obama as president.

And that's the kicker: you people --yes, I said you people-- still can't or won't see that.

Civil rights are not issues with shades of grey... you don't seem to comprehend that either. They're not just for the right kind of people, they're for all people.
It's beyond me how people who call themselves Democrats, much less Progressives, DON'T feel it's, as you say, my way or the highway.

[Jamastiene]

154. K&R

[saracat]

157. What a wonderful Post! Civil Rights are NOT negotiable and the discussion

could also be as to why some think they are!

[Natalya Slosky]

165. thanks for the great post.

I am tired of being told to sit down and shut up and accept the way things are now.
I for one will never be happy with Obama's decision to have Warren give the invocation, and don't understand how anyone who identifies themselves as progressive would accept it.

[NashVegas]

166. I'm Not Sure It's Entirely Possible In This Particular Atmosphere

In order to really reconcile, both parties have to be allowed to, honestly, put all their issues on the table, where they can be dealt with.

Hets who don't get it, should they be honest, risk treading very shaky ground and breaking DU rules in the first place.


I remember the great Snickers commercial controversy. I was on the wrong side of that one in the name of "satire" and, if it hadn't been for DU's gay community, wouldn't have given it a second thought after rolling my eyes. In retrospect, I'm really glad GLBT DU made a stink over that.

[ThomCat]

168. I'm really glad to see you post that.

We took so much abuse for getting upset about that commercial that it's really nice to know that someone got something from it.
:woohoo:

[Zhade]

187. And they SHOULD be banned. Bigots shouldn't be welcome here.

Happily, per Skinner, they're not.

[trickyguy]

167. No reconciliation if some of these people think they have God on their side.

And it helps them feel even more correct if they hold a Bible in their hands.

Hatred and bigotry don't go away with reconciliation. They just find a new disguise.

I'm over these people. I'm over trying to be their friend. I'll go read a book instead.

:puke:

[fascisthunter]

171. I Tip My Hat to You Again...

Great post and great thread.

[Rockholm]

173. Great Post.

[WhiteTara]

175. we've decided to just

fast forward through his little bit.

[McCamy Taylor]

181. "It is not so much that Warren was given an invitation that has so many of us upset"

Now you are rewriting history. Unless what had you upset was the refusal of others to turn away from Obama over the issue. They did not dump him when he caved in on warrantless wiretap or other issues, so I do not see why this one is supposed to be different. He ran on a unity platform. He likes to bring people to the table. You knew this was coming.

[Zhade]

188. I don't think anyone suspected he wanted unity with bigots.

NT!

[Two Americas]

211. no

I don't care about Warren and I don't care about Obama in regards to what I am saying on this thread.

This is not about liking Obama, nor not liking Warren.

I care about the way people are being treated here.

[AntiFascist]

245. Please don't rewrite my history...

I may not speak for everyone taking issue with Obama, but please let me make it clear:

I'm not turning away from Obama altogether. Your side tends to always group us together as if we have this agenda, but in fact I'm not criticizing Obama much on other issues and I'm not calling for people to turn against his presidency.

Also, let me be clear that I have much more of an issue with the religiously bigoted words that Obama spoke at the Saddleback debate in Rick Warren's church. Once he took this further and decided to honor Warren at his inauguration, then I felt it was time to speak out.

[leftofthedial]

190. plenty of straight people also are unhappy about the Warren selection

[ismnotwasm]

206. No

Even in the name of political expediency, those defending Warren and his ilk are supporting a societal pathology, a mental aberration that seems to have no cure. Like cancer, Homophobia/hatred pollutes the ideal of a healthy human ecology, keeping it from health that we'd like to see, body, mind and soul.

Homophobia/hatred has very deep roots in some extremely twisted premises that are now considered "values" by some. The language has been tarted up a bit to palatable to your modern Conservative. Doesn't matter. It's still a sick state of mind.

They more I read, and the more I know, the more I understand I could no more "reach out" to Warren that I could "reach out" to a amoral mass murderer. Preaching hate may not directly lay hands on another human being in harm, but theres is still a inherently violent influence, and I know devout Gay Christians who are harmed in spirit by such words, and walk in fear simply because they exist. Using a holy text with questionable interpretations to push policy is not the way to make nice.

How could anybody justify this? How do I have a dialog? Where is the healthy, productive argument?

Homophobia/hatred, is a deep psychological sickness, and one is all the more damaging because it's evidently reached a point of mass hysteria with possible millions of conservative Christians.

Homosexuality is a necessary and sacred part of healthy human sexuality. It's a beautiful balance. It teaches us more about love, affection and giving than a month of Sundays. It lets those who have no place have a place. It allows creativity with the principles of hard and valuable work and inovation cross gender lines in ways not imagined a hundred years gone. It's about loving and learning the human condition NOT whatever goes on in the privacy of a bedroom.

What do the Warrens of the world have to say to me? I already know the standard arguements. Homophobic/haters are not reasonable, although they give the appearence of being reasonable. They are not rightous, although they think they are. The are not peaceful, and this maybe more than anything else is what upsets me. They want nothing to do with peace or understanding. They need to fight, they need a target. They need anger. They thrive on it. It's disgusting.

[Two Americas]

224. beautiful post

Thank you.

I don't think reconciliation with Warren is possible or desirable, and would not advocate that.

[ismnotwasm]

271. I know you don't

It's just I've been kind of thinking out loud lately.(Or typing) What's really, really been bothering me that, in my opinion, even passive acceptance of homophobia/hatred is supporting a societal pathology we can't afford to support anymore. It's so clear to me, you know?

To reword a bit, Homophobia/hatred is a serious, sick pathology, that isn't being challenged ENOUGH by the straight liberal community. There is no "ok" part of it. We have to stop it or we're in big trouble as a society. Warren is merely the lastest incarnation that represents this---destructive state of (un)mind

[Two Americas]

308. thanks again

You are bringing a powerful new perspective to this discussion. Stunning, and awe-inspiring really. Thanks.

[ThomCat]

226. I wish we could kick and recommend individual posts!

:applause:

[defendandprotect]

213. This is simply going to take more dedication, more time,

a lot more posting AND a tremendous amount of free speech about homosexual rights as

Human Rights --

Meanwhile I hope female posters here understand the threat of Warren, who I presume

could just as easily run a Prop 8 on denying us equality ... !!

I'm not that familiar with Warren but presume he is also anti-Semitic --

and that would also include African-Americans and Jews --

Perhaps the new First Lady will think of that in regard to their own daughters???

And, again, this issue is a threat to us all as the world OUTSIDE of DU has noticed --

This is not a DU issue --- but a universal issue.

[AntiFascist]

249. There have been a flood of amicus briefs filed against Prop 8 in the CA Supreme Court...

There are many diverse groups filing these briefs, including women's groups, cultural minorities, a whole bunch of unions, and non-mainstream religious organizations who are concerned about precisely the problem you mention: that Prop 8 could be a slippery slope allowing other classes of people to lose Fundamental Rights through the initiative process.

[defendandprotect]

311. Thank you for letting us know there has been a "flood" . . .

I had read of only one or two --

But DU reaction to this criticism seems always to ignore the many connections and

problems connected with the Warren choice. I very strongly support Separation of

Church & State and feel the Inauguration is suggesting that we're ousting right-wing

religous fanatics while replacing them with just more of the same.

Imagine had Segregation been put to a vote in the southern states---!!!

[AntiFascist]

314. Yeah, my mailbox was filled up this morning from state supreme court notifications...

just to fair, there was also an amicus brief filed by the 'Church of the Messiah' supporting the other side. :eyes:

filed by none other than T.M. Reverend Messiah. No kidding!

[AmyCamus]

268. Bigot Warren deserves scorn, not validation by Obama and the 'loyalty police'

You're either for bigotry, or against it.

[Buzz Clik]

274. This is probably the most blind OP on this subject to date. You, my friend, epitomize the problem.

You have stated quite clearly that anyone who doesn't embrace the hard line against Warren is anti-gay.

Wrong. Dead wrong.

I quit talking about this subject because a) the moderators were totally up my ass on the subject, and b) I got sick of being called homophobic by people who don't know me simply because of my stand in this single subject.

The DU community seldom represents the Democratic/progressive/liberal view on anything, and this is no exception.

You don't want to hear an opposing point of view, so I won't bother to give one. Suffice it say that you are wrong.

[leftstreet]

277. "the moderators were totally up my ass on the subject" n/t

[Buzz Clik]

278. Yeah, and? Would you like documentation of that?

Or do you have some other problem?

[ElboRuum]

292. I think you were being chastised...

...on your, contextually, unfortunate choice of words.

[Buzz Clik]

300. Maybe.

I guess the inference is that anything "up that ass" is the exclusive turf of the homosexual male, or that the mention of such things somehow carries a negative connotation toward certain sexual orientations. That, too, is incorrect.

[Tarc]

285. If you don't want to be called a homophobe

Then don't act like one.

If you lie down in a pile of shit, they shouldn't be surprised when others tell you that you smell like shit.

[ElboRuum]

291. You don't apparently have to act like one to be called one these days.

And I think that's the whole point.

[AntiFascist]

302. There's a fine line of distinction between homophobia and behavior....

that one my not be conscious of that carries a certain prejudice. When Obama spoke out at the Saddleback debate about his religious bias toward heterosexual marriage he may not have been aware of the underlying religious bigotry. When he cracked jokes at that roast dinner about how surprised he was that certain Republicans would dare dress in drag, the humor was also playing right into this social atmosphere even though it was totally acceptable by most people. When comedians crack these jokes we have to be able to laugh at ourselves, but when someone does it who is not conscious of his own underlying prejudices, it can be offensive.

[ElboRuum]

317. Please...

...let's keep putting our own thoughts in others' brains. Maybe one day we'll get lucky and be right.

[Buzz Clik]

301. That slam just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

It really doesn't matter if it fits. Just dish it out.

[Two Americas]

295. I have no line

I have no line on Warren, hard or otherwise. I am talking about the Warren discussion here, not Warren.

I said that a particular argument is anti-gay, not that people are. Anyone who truly supports the cause would of course want to know the ways in which we could all be wittingly or unwittingly making arguments that support the opposition. There would never be any need for resisting such an examination of our own thoughts and ideas.

I am not trying to avoid hearing an opposing point of view. To the contrary, I am welcoming all views, and I am saying that we need to talk about this in greater depth. I welcome opposing points of view. I want to hear them. I want to understand them. I want everyone to hear and understand the opposing point of view. The more clearly the opposition speaks, the better we will be able to see it.

I am suspicious of people who are looking for a shortcut, who want us to believe that they have already arrived at the perfect tolerant and progressive state of mind. My thinking on this is continually evolving and I don't flatter myself that I have arrived anywhere yet or deserve any credit. I can't imagine saying "hey I support gay rights, so get off my case" and thinking that is all that there is to it.

For example, watching some of the responses on this thread, I now think that there is a great deal of resistance to this discussion for some, and I think that is where most of the anger and outrage is coming from. It is the people who want this discussion to go away who are angry and outraged as much as anyone is. That is then projected onto "the gays." I think the fear of this discussion is an expression of homophobia. People want to say "I support gay rights, now go away and don't shove this issue in my face, don't make me think about it." It is a way to keep gays at arms length, to keep them in their place, as though people were saying "if I say I support gay rights, then will you leave me alone? If you don't I am going to get very angry, and I am going to blame you."

Comparing this to racism, if someone says to me that I am expressing something that is racist, I am interested in that and I listen. I don't get angry and defensive. I am not emotionally invested in my own self image as not-a-racist, and I am not afraid of the issue. I am concerned about the issue, not about my own supposed "stance" on the issue - who cares about that? The only people who get angry and defensive, who worry more about being "labeled" then they do about the issue itself, are people who are not willing to seriously look at racism.

Here, most of the outrage is people outraged and angry and offended at supposedly being "labeled homophobic." I do not understand under any circumstances why this would be a concern for people, let alone cause for such anger and outrage. Clearly, the right wingers use this "reverse" thinking on the subject of race as a way to suppress discussion about racism, and so to reinforce and promote racism. If they can shift the discussion away from racism, and over to who is and who is not labeling whom what, then they succeed. "How dare you call me a racist?" they will say when the subject of racism comes up.

That is why this subject is so important to discuss, because the way in which right wing thinking is crating so many difficulties for us here on this subject is that same way that we are undermined and sabotaged, divided and conquered, on every issue.

The right wingers want us to believe that it is not the oppression of the poor that is the problem - it is those who are trying to foment class warfare (anyone advocating for the poor.) It is not racism that is the problem, it is "reverse racism" - people throwing around accusations that others "are racists." It is not hatred and bigotry targeting GLBTQ people that is the problem, it is the angry gays and the "labeling" of people as "homophobic."

Why should we willingly stay in this trap that the right wingers have us in? Does not everyone here want to break free of that?

[Buzz Clik]

304. I don't think you're begging for a big fight, so I'll respond. (Thanks, btw)

I revisited this thread half a dozen times before responding, and you captured the reason why:

I said that a particular argument is anti-gay, not that people are.

Good enough. I have no reason to think otherwise despite having a different first impression.

So, leaving that behind, let me say that I really appreciate this comment:

I am suspicious of people who are looking for a shortcut, who want us to believe that they have already arrived at the perfect tolerant and progressive state of mind. My thinking on this is continually evolving and I don't flatter myself that I have arrived anywhere yet or deserve any credit. I can't imagine saying "hey I support gay rights, so get off my case" and thinking that is all that there is to it.

I, too, am evolving and gaining a better appreciation between the difference between anti-gay arguments and anti-gay people. It is clear to me now that even if Warren's presence at the inauguration may not be a huge strike against the quest for all rights for all people, it is a strike and should not be accepted.

The rest of your response was very interesting and very appreciated. Let me just say this before I go my way (more fully cognizant of the responsibilities I've been ignoring with respect to this issue): Many of us have been very defensive of Obama in this because of the time and energy we personally spent in getting him elected. During the primaries particularly, I'm sure you noticed how divided this place was. And, less than 24 hours after Obama's election, we had detractors from every corner of DU telling us how disappointed they were in Obama. Your posts have taken the first step in making me appreciate the other point of view. And you managed that without calling me a homophobe ... No, you managed it because you resisted calling me a homophobe.

And, again, thanks for that.

[Two Americas]

310. got it

Thank you so much, and your response is much appreciated.

"Many of us have been very defensive of Obama in this because of the time and energy we personally spent in getting him elected."

Understood. I do understand that.

[defendandprotect]

312. Excellent points . . .

as you make clear the faults in the debate --- and show us where we should be going!

[StreetKnowledge]

287. Rick Warren is a homophobe, Period.

We've had to deal with such assholes for eight years. We don't need them any longer. Obama should get a more moderate priest. I can name examples for him. There is no way that we can allow this any longer.

I haven't got a problem calling it like it is - and here's how it is. Rick Warren is a homophobe. He's a worthless scumbag towards those of us who are homosexuals. As a result, a man who talks about change should find a good pastor, not keep on running the same crap that's been done for eight years.

[asdjrocky]

296. Hey TA, it's great to have such a smart friend.

I'm all for discussing it. I'm all for moving away from the hate that people like Warren preach and I'm still a bit dumbfounded by his selection.

Prop 8 hurt me because it hurt members of my family, it hurt friends. As a low class working stiff I've been taking a pounding from the powers that be for at least 28 years now, and my gay brothers and sisters have taken a far harsher pounding for far longer. I don't like seeing my friends hurt and that anger is doubled when the hurt comes from a trusted source.

I have hope. I have hope the policies will outshine the rhetoric. I'm capable of being chocked up when I think about the inauguration, but now it does feel a bit tainted. So let's talk. Let's stay on our governments back about the issues that matter. About losing DADT, about bringing about a country where we can all be free to live the way we wish.

We have it close at hand now. We can reach that promised land. But we'll never get there unless everyone gets a free and equal voice. And shuting down dialog just sets us back.

Warren should be free to live his life as he sees fit, as long as all of our brothers and sisters and those in between can do the same.

That's all I got.

And it's great to see you by the way.

[Two Americas]

298. that is very good Rocky

Very moving, very well said. It is great to see you, too, my friend. Thanks for the compliment, but don't confuse "verbose" with "smart" lol. You can say in a few words what takes me several paragraphs.

[asdjrocky]

299. Black, met kettle.

Still have my email address? Drop me a line, I have a question or two.

[Two Americas]

306. no

Computer crash, etc, the usual stuff. PM me.

[asdjrocky]

309. Will do.