Some Of Youse Straight People Are Pretty Fucking Kewl

When gays and lesbians get flattened yet one more time by politicians who give lip service to human rights but apparently don't live them -

You have no idea how good it feels when we witness overwhelming numbers of straight allies, friends and family get as angry and hurt and enraged as we do.

Brothers and sisters, you rock.

:hi:

being used as example of what not to be, i'm tired of hearing people wanting to amend the constitution to actually take rights away from people, seriously, how fucked up is that? wtf kind of country would we be if people don't stand up?

I wish we could all get together... walk up to city hall and burn our marriage certificates in protest.

May the next generation stands up for their fellow human beings better than mine has.

:thumbsup:

it's never hard or heroic to stand up for what's right. You rock yourself.

If we leave some of our brothers and sisters behind out of political expediency, we have no business calling ourselves progressives.

more people don't think this way, proves the idea that we are one gene away from apes. Anyway it's easier for me to have gay friends then republican ones,as what gay people do or have done has never hurt me.Repubs have been hurting us since they left the party of Lincoln.

You either back equal rights for everyone or you don't - there's no middle ground. And I am so fucking tired of all this bigot-shit. I am waiting to see if equal rights is in the Dem platform; if not, I think that says it all. We hang together or we hang separately (and I like the good company) :hi:

Except for Cheney, who bleeds oil. :)

I thought it was pus.


Okay, okay....I had to say it. Sorry. :puke:

I wrote this because I'm obsessive and nuances of politics interest me, but I don't want to be an Obama hater, so I won't post it as it's own thing. Just seems like piling on. But I'm curious whether my reading of this statement was in line with yours. And hiding here in a sub-thread it won't attract the few whacked out Obama boosters on the 'screw the gays' bandwagon.

______________________
When a politician encounters a PR disaster he and his staff put together a statement to defuse the controversy. Such statements are crafted over hours. They go through revisions and are reviewed my many top staffers. Each word is weighed for its effect. So it is not nit-picking to study such statements to divine what the campaign is trying to convey.

After reading this statement carefully a few times, I am struck that it is directed at traditionalist elements of the black religious community, not the GLBT community. From the gay perspective it seems vaguely offensive in its careful avoidance of admitting to an over-arching moral dimension to gay rights. It comes off as a message to older, traditionalist black people that gays should be given rights as some sort of technicality, and/or because giving them rights will pay-off in practical benefits for black people.

It seems odd as an apology to GLBT, who are the offended party in the controversy.

"I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens."

Why "my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters"... it is not a "belief" that gays are human.

"should be provided the respect..." why 'provided'? Shouldn't it be "are entitled to" rather than "should be provided"? The concept of granting gays human rights seems about fifty years out of date.

"...of all other citizens." Seems like a distancing formulation.

"I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country."

"spoken... about the need to overcome the homophobia..." What is the reason the black community needs to overcome homophobia? Because it is wrong? No...

"so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country." It is a practical concern, and a concern not focused on individual victims of homophobia or on the moral dimension of the question.

"I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."

"I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights." Again, a practical formulation. We need to work together. That's great, but it is essentially acknowledging black homophobia and, rather than condemning it as immoral, diplomatically suggesting that it be set aside for some practical goal.

"And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views..." This is what set me off. "And so"??? His stated reason for disagreeing with McClurkin's views is that he believe blacks and gays need to work together. That is incoherent. Shouldn't the reason to disagree with McClurkin's views be that they are immoral, rather than that they are an impediment to some shared goal of the gay and black communities? And which views, exactly? Surely not everything the man has ever thought, so which views are being disagreed with?

"and will continue to fight for these rights..." These rights? What rights? He has not mentioned any particular rights. "...to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division" Again, a higher goal than the basic morality of human rights is cited.

I get what you're saying, but I doubt it's what they were thinking.

I felt he was talking about us (gays) - not to us.

My initial reaction was that it sounded like Lincoln talking about slavery. Good hearted, but from a perspective of great distance, and viewing the undertaking of liberation as exotic and abstract... a thing about ideas rather than people.

I don't intend to submit all campaign BS to such scrutiny, but over the last two days I became very interested in what tack would taken because it seemed such a thorny lose-lose PR problem. You know... "what would I say in his position?"

As one of the "atheist-types" I feel like I got at least a little taste of the hate-disgust flyin' around.

Assuming I was one of the decent straight people, thanks for your post.

I will admit I didn't break down the statement when I glanced at it. I was simply pleased that it had finally been made, as it was overdue.

What IS said here is almost as important as what was not said, and you've pulled this apart and noted the salient aspects very well.

You just drilled down and gave intellectual meat to the cursory reaction one has that this statement has no moral substance.

When I first read it, I skimmed it and I had a vague feeling of discomfort; there was no fire or emotion behind the words, it was a clinical policy statement, not an impassioned statement of belief. There was no THERE there.

It's the same problem I've had with him all along on gay issues. I don't really believe him. I think he takes the stands he does on gay rights because they are a litany of progressive policy issues, not because the issues really resonate with him or that he understands their import. I realize this is purely subjective on my part. But it's why I had a tough time with him publicly lauding Tom Coburn. He just doesn't seem to GET it.

This was supposed to be directed to you (though DURHAM D is welcome to the warm sentiment as well):

As one of the "atheist-types" I feel like I got at least a little taste of the hate-disgust flyin' around.

Assuming I was one of the decent straight people, thanks for your post.

having heard how code words are used to get the faithful in line, I have to agree with your theory.

Acknowledging white religious homophobia might be something for our candidates to consider doing, as well.

It takes addressing the black or white religious communities directly on this, which is what Obama has done and is what you are objecting to. We're always talking to each other and the candidates are expected, demanded, to address us here in the echo chamber. But I think Obama's statement might set an example for those who hear it and are under sway of homophobic ignorance to question themselves. He's done similar things in speaking to business leaders and to the AA community in the past. Of course there is distance, how could there not be? He's not gay. No matter how sympathetic or loving or merely accepting we may be of others' life challenges, we all don't live in each other's skins. It's an emotional and intellectual achievement to recognize and overcome early conditioning and it hurts - in an ouch kind of way. Not every human being is even capable of getting past it, whether it's about sexuality, gender, race, ideology. Obama's done that, he is not in the least anti-gay, but he recognizes that particular community isn't there with him. Which is more productive or even braver, telling hard truths to the ignorant and bigoted, or telling us what we want to hear?

I believe this person should never in a million years have been on the bill for this event. At the same time, I think the statement is a good, solid one that might advance at least a conversation in those circles, some self-recognition if only among those who are ready, at home where they KNOW they have gay family members, in gatherings where the nature of Christianity is discussed, the nature of right and wrong and social justice. I mean, we're already convinced, we've already done the personal conscience-raising that is what it takes. Is it going to be about braying for blood (meaning Obama's, though I don't think that's what you in particular are doing) or about working for change?

are people who have problems with sex, and THOSE people are WEIRD.

The problem there is that most people have problems with sex. Then again, many of those don't have problems with gay sex.

One of Lenny Bruce's best lines ever was dismissing someone as being "a card-carrying member of the great legion of the unlaid."

It hurts a bit afterwards. :spank:

Sex is private and personal. We should be debating this issue in terms of love. It's about the rights of an individual to share romance with the one he or she loves. Therefore, we shouldn't refer to one's sexual orientation. We should refer to someone's romantic orientation.

NGU.

Sex is "icky" and makes people uncomfortable. Nobody can argue with love.

Good heavens.

it's probably about sex.

Sorry if that's offensive, but the topic of homosexuality has a little something to do with sex. Considering what a puritanical country this is, it's a big deal.

I was trying to make light of it: in a country where so many people are completely flipped out by even the most conventional physical intimacy, anything else just blows their tidy little tight minds.

NGU.

Go ahead, be humorless and snap at allies; that's a big help.

This is the kind of political correctness that makes people barf: fear of or bigotry towards gays has something to do with an uncomfortableness with the concept of the acts themselves. People who have problems with sex have problems with sex.

Fine. Why don't you just give us a checklist of approved topics upon which we can agree with you so your delicate sensibilities won't be reoffended? Just spell them out like a list of multiple choice answers, so when threads like this come up we can just respond "Absolutely! 'A' and 'C'!" and be acceptable.

(If I'd detected that you had even the slightest whiff of a sense of humor, I'd have said "B" and "D"...)

My apologies to the rest of you; I was trying to be pleasant, constructive and fun with my initial post. Hopefully some take it with the spirit it was intended, and I'm sorry if I've ruined what was an otherwise nice and friendly thread.

Hey rug...

Never Give Up.

When MLK said "we shall overcome", he wasn't talking about only certain people. WE MUST ALL OVERCOME

Reading some of the responses is the first time I've felt fear on DU. It goes right back to the history of eugenics and fascism as the Pink Triangle attests.

I let my anger run away with me at times, but I felt fear: the capacity of people to turn on their fellow human beings. I celebrate everyone who is uncompromising on GLBT human rights.

So much so that my husband and I wouldn't let our son join the Cub Scouts (he came from school understandably wanting to join after they were allowed to give their spiel to a captive audience). We told him we disagreed with the Scouts policies, and why. Then we started our own group. We've been going strong for four years now, and we have kids with straight parents and kids with gay parents and religious people and atheists involved in the group.

:toast:

who has a pretty great mom

:toast:

Thanks. :blush:


:toast:

Take me. A fat kid with an ugly face, no social skills and a continual punching bag for football players and jocks. So, yeah, when gay people suffer I kind of identify.

The one thing I can't stand, though, is when gay people say "you can't understand what we're going through." Maybe black people can say that with a degree of truth, since race is a radically different situation than ugliness or social discomfort. But sexual preference isn't that radical a difference.

Claiming that nobody can ever, ever understand being oppressed like your particular group is oppressed just hits me as pretentious, and I don't get along with pretentiousness.

You can't completely understand how it feels to someone else.

I can't understand how it feels to be gay in this culture but I can empathize as a woman, as someone who is bi-racial, as a human being with an imagination, as someone who has many gay friends.

No, you can't hide your color in the closet or your gender.

But that doesn't mean you don't suffer, internally or hiding who you are on a very basic level isn't very painful.

You either hide and suffer in silence because you are denying who you are or come out and have bigots oppress you.

Do you know how that feels?

Neither do I.

While many people suffer abuse in some fashion, most don't get the kind of treatment we do, that involves being told to change something that we can't, or we're doomed to eternal damnation. While your situation is rough, it doesn't involve laws that keep you from getting married. Employers won't fire you over it. You won't have to worry about being sent to prison if you travel to the wrong places with your spouse. We face all sorts of odd things like that.Of course, we tend to get some nasty treatment when we're in school too.

Also, between race and orientation, it's a tossup really. Rights for people based upon sexual orientation is farther behind, and for gender identity is even farther yet. While not being visibly homosexual most of the time is nice, as it can be used to avoid discrimination in some ways, it also hurts in that it keeps us from being visible. Because of our invisibility, people don't tend to be aware of how many of us there are around them, and if we didn't have that factor, we'd probably gain acceptance more quickly.

because of the way you look? It's not just social 'discomfort," for some it can be a betrayal and abandonment from the people who should love them most.

as someone who has spoken UP AND OUT about human rights for gays for DECADES I tell you thank you and you're WELCOME :hi:

We love you!

:grouphug:

Dr King said injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Smart man.

:yourock:

Kudos to our straight friends. :thumbsup:

That would solve alot of problems.

That would make my lifetime. :)

I'm straight, but not vanilla, so I see how these people want to control how we act, how we think and who we associate with...all of us. That scares me more than a little. Either all of us are free, or none of us are.

cure.

and the belief that what someone else does sexually speaking isn't your business.

It also helps if the person who is being hateful deal with the fact that the person they are hurting is also a person too, and not "one of them."

Don't mess with the family.

Yeah, I like straight people, too. They can be very "kewl" as you say. Very much so.

I just never figured out their orientation (for the life of me, it just baffles me!) , but I can overlook that one small flaw that they must bear. ;-)

ruggerson, we need more folks like you here. :toast:

DZ

And you don't fuck with my family.

Thanks for the kind words!

:toast: