DU reaction to the Warren contaversy shows how far we have to go

The isuue is the selection of a homophobic pastor to deliver the Inagural invoacation for a Democratic president-elect. One that openly demonizes them and works to deny them their civil rights

And here we are, a progressive community, debating if this is a good thing? What say?

It's horrific, an affront to all we stand for. There is no "reasonable disagreement" about this among progressives.

This is a reminder of just how far we have to go.

Then perhaps you should leave. You wouldn't want to associate and find common ground with homophobes, would you?

Are the big mean Gays picking on the poor oppressed straights?

If you're freaked out because Obama strives to find common ground with homophobes, you shouldn't also be finding common ground with people you think are homophobes.

Lest you wind up a hypocrite.

He is a BIGOT who actively campaigns (i.e. his strong support for Prop H8) against Civil Rights. He's dangerous.

Or are you saying that mild forms of bigotry are OK to associate with?

...via a pulpit or a microphone, he becomes much more dangerous. And, yes, all bigotry should not be accepted.:thumbsdown:

No, I did not.

I do believe there are some homophobes here, however. My question to you is, why should gays surrender a progressive community to them? Why is it the gays, and not the bigots, who should be made to feel unwanted here?

that DU is a homophobic community. If the person really believes that, they should follow their own statement to the logical consequences.

Personally, I think the whole notion is absurd and laughable.

I fail to see how anyone can dispute the claim that there is a debate here on the Warren issue, it's been constant theme for days.

I too am surprised that there is a difference of opinion on this issue at DU, a supposedly Liberal/Progressive website.

IMO, there are some issues that are beyond debate.

Honoring someone by having them give the invocation is not the same thing as finding common ground with them.

You are confusing honoring someone with talking to them, not the same thing at all.

I have zero problem with Obama talking to anyone, Ahmedinejad, Kim Jong Il, James Dobson or Rick Warren, I do have a problem with honoring any of them by putting them in front of a national audience to bless Obama's inaugural.

You're in favor of discussing actual policy with a guy who thinks gay people don't even exist?

Sick!

Edited to add that I misunderstood the post I was replying to, now that I see another reply in that thread. I think I'm entitled to draw conclusions about Obama based on who he chooses to honor, and this one sucks pond scum.

and Skinner has stated that if anyone doesn't like it they can go elsewhere.

It's "homophobes" who will change -- or leave.

...period.

Recommended.

...that fact cannot be disputed. However, that does not always mean he's correct.

You have to sell your ideas to a large and diverse public in order to win elections. The Democratic party includes a fair number of non-progressives, especially on certain issues. "Yes" on Prop 8 got many more votes in California than McCain did, and "no" on Prop 8 got many fewer votes than Obama did. To say nothing of the votes that Kucinich or Edwards got in the primaries.

To make some guesses, perhaps 80% of this community, not including trolls, is in total agreement on 70% of issues. Presumably people here are your political allies. If not on the Warren issue, then on many other issues, especially the core issues of nominating more progressive Democratic candidates in primaries and defeating Republican candidates in general elections.

If you are not willing to discuss things with your allies. If you cannot be bothered to persuade even people who agree with you on many or most other issues, then how do you ever hope to persuade a majority? Or would you rather just belong to a perfectly pure, and probably small group, where every OP is met with "ditto" "ditto" "ditto"?

My perception is that it simply is NOT theworstthingthateverhappenedeverOMFGweareallgonnadie.

There are quite a few DU members who think "reaching out" to Warren is indeed a good thing and they haven't been shy about saying so.

I might have missed the Warren Fan Club posts.

He purported that this was a good thing- in a thread which pointed out that when Obama debated in his forum, the Warren used Obama's answers to legitimize proposition 8.

Another common one is "This isn't important enough to get upset about," which can be fairly translated into "What do I care what he does? Why should I bother to find out?"

But I will say again, loudly and clearly, it does not mean we gays have been thrown "under the bus."
He's saying a stupid pray, not making policy.

and what about all those voices I hear all the time, they just won't shut up!

If I have to choose supporting one over supporting the other -- and Obama's choice of Rick Warren has put things in pretty stark terms to me; I know now that Obama is perfectly capable of turning his back on gays and women in favor of sucking up to repulsive bigots -- I sure as hell am not going to pick Obama.

And think that human rights are negotiable and can be sold for political benefit.

While I'm shocked we're even having this discussion, I've had lots of discussions in the last few years I NEVER thought I'd EVER have in the US, including:

"Unelected Presidents- Better that civil disorder?"
"Spying on us- necessary for our safety?"
"Breaking the law- is it good for our Gov't to be exempt from it's own laws?"
"Torture- Does it work? Should we allow it in certain situations?"
"Pre-emptive war- is it a legitimate foreign policy tool?"
"Should the Gov't be allowed to arrest without charges?"

This is yet another "Wait...WHAT?!?!" moments.

Should save you from a few new grey hairs next time you see a discussion about "reconsidering women's suffrage" here, or the like.

And how true, I hadn't thought about it like that until your post.

The "conservatives" are winning because the powers that be benefit from that. Therefore, the number of people pushing for change diminishes, the social pressure to shut up increases, and rights disappear.

I suppose I should start seeing it as a trend and simply encourage the like-minded people in my life not to sell out.

Warren will end up helping our cause in the long run.

There are better choices than Warren, but his selection has kept the issue in the spotlight, exposed a lot of the ignorance and irrationality of the opposition, and inspired many to keep fighting harder.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

I think in this case DU has served it's purpose well.

pretty damn rampant

""There is no "reasonable disagreement" about this among progressives.""

That is an elite statement if I ever saw one. Who the heck are you to dictate what is or isn't a reasonable disagreement?