The gay succession and the "false christian" succession we see with Obama/bush.

The old story is this:

THE GAY SUCCESSION
Walt Whitman Slept with Edward Carpenter
Edward Carpenter Slept with Gavin Arthur
Gavin Arthur Slept with Dean Moriarty
Dean Moriarty Slept with Allen Ginsberg
Allen Ginsberg Slept with ...
http://www.gaysunshine.com/exc_gaysuccess.html

The new story begins

The "False Religion" Succession
George W. Bush slept with Pat Robertson
Pat Robertson slept with Rick Warren
Obama slept with Rick Warren
Will you sleep while
False Religion controls your government?


Obama, America prays that you will dump Warren.

:eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7999540&mesg_id=7999540

and the rest of us are asking that the knife be removed from our backs. I guess the rest of must just have a very low pain tolerance.

With respect to the rights of racial minorities I don't find Clarence Thomas to be a reliable indicator of how things impact the African American community. Similarly, as well intentioned as sincere as Lucky 13 may be, I don't find her voice representative of what this selection means to the vast majority of us.

I think the strength of arguments matter, regardless of whether they are popular or not.

And I'm sorry, but the argument posted is simply far stronger and more reasonable.

"vast majority" and "representative" - all illicit appeals to masses, and irrelevant.

your GLBT friends are telling you that they are in pain, and are asking for your support. Just because one or two of us are not experiencing that pain, the fact that the majority of us are should tell you something is dramatically wrong. If you truly care about us, you should take the time and effort to listen not to the strength of the arguments on one side of the other, but to the pain we are feeling, and to call for an end to that pain because creating it was truly unnecessary - even if you think the logic expressed by Lucky 13 is persuasive.

There are plenty of other evangelical leaders who are not actively working against us and our families. If Obama wanted an evangelcal bridge to send a message to the evangelical community, any one of them would have done the job.

Selecting this particular evangelical leader, when he is actively working against our families and telling us we are no better than child molesters does not serve as a bridge; legitimizing Warren - not only on the national stage, but on the international one, as well - sends a clear message to GLBTs about just who is welcome at the Obama table - and it doesn't include me and my family.

First of all, you don't speak for the GLBT, and its insulting to me when other people act as though they do, and then attempt to marginalize or trivialize voices within that community that they disagree with. That's as much bullying as any other kind of bullying. You don't speak for me, and I don't speak for you.

Having said that, I empathetically recognize the reasonableness of this statement: "There are plenty of other evangelical leaders who are not actively working against us and our families. If Obama wanted an evangelical bridge to send a message to the evangelical community, any one of them would have done the job." I don't necessarily disagree.

I would characterize my own opinion as considering the response to Warren to be somewhat reactionary and hyperbolic, but also not seeing any particular brilliance or master plan in Obama's choice.

I think that a lot of Obama's first term is going to be trial and error as he discovers some of the obstacles to his no-blue, no-red just United idea of post-partisan politics. I still think its noble - no, more than that: I think its the only way we can really move forward as a society. But its not going to be easy, and it will be filled with missteps.

Incidentally, Rachel Maddow had a different take on it that I found to be thoughtful and compelling, but she did so without (I didn't feel) attempting to speak for the "Gay Community"(tm)

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/19/obama-maddow-warren/

For two days I've been reading posts that seem to imply that GLBT should have one voice! We are as diverse as any other group. Yes it was painful to see Warren chosen - yes we can and should object - but not tantrum - I guess I'm getting old but assertiv is better than agtrssive -in the big picture I think we will do well with Obama as our Prez - let him and all elected rep know what we think but with rational behavior and make room for other to express differnt levels of response/

Some African-Americans were fine with segregation and looked towards the next life for justice. Some workers are scabs.

There is a right wing and a left wing in every community. And, yes, the gay community has "two voices" as well. Only one of those two voices make history. Stonewall was a tantrum, by the way. And it was the tantrum that mobilized the movement that gave you the rights you have.

The other swoops in when the hard work is done and reaps the benefits, then tells the first group to shut up.

Life is more complex than simplistic binary thinking.... sigh.

Reactionary means a conservative push back after a revolutionary gain. The Thermidorians were reactionary after the French Revolution. The Christian Right are reactionary after "the sexual liberation" of the 1960s. Sensitive and 'reactionary' are not synonymous.

The revolutionary gain is the dismantling of traditional binary political categorizations and there are plenty of reactionaries out there

I reported what should be obvious to anyone who bothers to make a 10 minute scan of threads here - many of us here are telling you we are in pain.

If you need specific quotations, it wouldn't take long to find them but I am not going to bother because your characterization of my statements tells me you aren't particularly interested in listening to what is being said here because a large part of what is being said is not logic, but a primal cry of pain, anger, betrayal, and a whole lot of other things. Injuries that could easily not have been inflicted, and pain that can be at least mitigated by a quick apology withdrawal of the invitation.

Just because the "arguments" are based in logic, does not invalidate the need to address the pain inflicted by the monumentally insensitive choice - or my right to express outrage at it.

That's you speaking for the gay community.

one or two self-identified GLBT people were fine with it, and the rest of the self identified GLBT posters expressed some mix of pain, anger, frustration, you name it.

That is not speaking for - that is summarizing two days of posts. Like I said, I could find ample quotations that I could link to to illustrate the point, but it is obvious that you are looking to nit pick, rather than understand that/why many of us (again, I am summarizing) are really hurting.

and Jimmie slept with me