Liberal Gay-Bashers

If everyone is going to get worked up over this, then it should be equally offensive regardless of the source. That liberals want to overlook their own suggests that the insults are not offensive unless they can tie it some political gain in beating up on an opponent.
But be careful how far you want to straitjacket conversation. Short of the insults, diversity of views has to be allowed and acceptable. For example, if I say I oppose homosexual marriage, that is a legitimate position. There is nothing insulting about it.

cindyct,
Last I read, homosexuals account for 1-2 percent of the population. That is not a “large group”. It doesn’t make offensive labeling any less wrong but lets keep some honest perspective here.
Anyway, what if Obama, while not expressing it directly, doesn’t want affiliation with homosexuals and is not going to actively promote a pro-homosexual agenda? Personally, if that is the case, which I would support, fine, but I do agree that there is no place allowing or using offensive labels and language.

As a gay man against Obama I firmly believe that he has no need for homosexuals except for political reasons. I am convinced that Obama zombies will disagree, but then again if look at his “like family” associates it’s hard to believe any part of his social agenda.

All of this brings back scary and horrifying memories of Matthew Sheppard.

Matthew Shepard. The time when Conservative America stood up and basically said, “he had it coming to him.” But the Clintons and the rest of the world pushed back and said, “no human being regardless of sexual orientation deserved this.”

dl
I’d like to see a couple of real examples.

Kenny I am a gay man…and seen all the candidates speak in very personal spaces (I live in NH).
All of the candidates are pro-gay. Obama is a very smart educated guy and knows and has said several occasions listing gays first…he fights against oppression.
…and so does McCain but neither of them want to bring it up on the campaign trail because of all the hate and manipulation that it brigns with it.
I for one am glad they don’t open that debate…but I know they understand what has happened with suicide and gay youth…they understand that people have been born with something that has nothing to do with their worth and have been pushed to the sides (and out) of society.
This is an issue with these candidates…we don’t have to worry about.

s
(just off the top of my head)
Look at his speech when Kennedy endorsed him. Look at his stance on don’t ask don’t tell. He and all the other candidates don’t want to bring this up (including McCain because more than anyone it is a loser for him because his base will sit home)…
They all have shown support for the gay community. You just won’t here it being used to throw the election this year…and I am glad.
The focus needs to be (because we have 3 candidates who are very similar on this) the economy, the war, healthcare, infrastructure, our standing in the world and the environment.
No political crap from Fox news and the extreme hateful right.

The problem for both sides is this issue alienates the ‘moral majority’ to borrow an old term. That means in states and communities where the ministers regularly condemn homosexuality from the pulpit, this is a very divisive issue as was shown when the Republicans masterfully introduced it in 2004 as the gay marriage issue.
Few took the trouble to distinguish the concept of marriage as a religious sacrament and as a civil instrument. Few do now. One thing is certain: the discrimination against it is just as rooted and firm in modern culture as it ever has been and the natural occurrence of it is as well. It will be a political football until Federal laws are passed, so this is a legitimate topic of conversation.
Unfortunately, like race, it won’t be a sensible topic during a presidential election. It becomes another blunt instrument to beat up opponents. The Republicans have always made it a Democratic issue and never discuss it sensibly. So it rots the Democratic nomination process to the advantage of the far right.
In this election, given the past and affiliations of the candidates, it is an albatross for the Obama campaign given his almost unanimous base in the black community where the churches preach against it more openly and frequently. Clinton has a much better record on this issue but neither gains much ground putting it front and center as a plank of their own policy.
They simply lose given that moral majority. The further left your candidate is, the more lightly you want to tread on this one.

No surprise here. Many liberal dems. only care about the gay vote in the primary season only to throw them under the bus during a general election and later in office. Most notable of this type of democrat, Bill Clinton.

@Tom:
Ten percent is the number I’ve seen most often, and that is used as evidence that it is a naturally occurring condition, not a preference or lifestyle choice. The notion is that that percentage is historically stable: ten percent is average over long periods of time (say centuries).
IOW, what changes is culture. Culture (the zeitgeist) goes through phases of acceptance and alienation. It has been doing that as long as we have records and literature to look at. The gay lifestyle ‘choice’ is ‘in the closet’ or ‘out of the closet’ which is why the DTDA rule was made. It is the only rule that could be made at the time which had a chance of coming close to addressing the issue without introducing unmanageable and unsustainable force. We are culturally getting past that with the numbers of open gay couplings; so culturally, we are ready for adjustments. Be warned though, the historical pattern is this doesn’t last and the door shuts with amazing speed given some upsurge in other forces such as religious or nationalist fevers that typically accompany economic downturns (see Weimar Republic).
This one is perrennial and all we can do is have laws protecting people against discrimination. It is remarkably tough to enforce those.
Again, this one will hurt Obama most and the only winner will be McCain. This is why I say to the Clinton campaign, quit worrying so much about who you will offend. They aren’t voting for you anyway. Worry about who you can defend. They will.
The whole trick of Rovian politics is to introduce issues that divide your opponent’s base while adding small increments to your own. The short form of that is “Let’s you and him fight.”

I’ve struggled with the politics of courting gays. As a gay man, I feel like we are too easily swayed by anyone who says they will help us. Hillary is the most obvious person courting the gay vote. She’s more willing to say that she will advance legislation for the repeal of DOMA, for marriage rights (marriage with the word and everything), and every other right. It is the carrot we want. I hear Obama talking about what he believes he can accomplish with our help, not all of what we want, but some of it. He’s realistic and I like being treated like an adult with him. Even though I love that Hillary is talking us up–I don’t feel any sincerity, and I feel as if I am being manipulated.
We jump at the first promise of help. But Obama is right, when he spoke in the Advocate, the burden is on us to make the changes too. We have to make inroads into the straight community, straight to Congress, straight to friends and neighbors–and not rely on one person. Hillary boasts that she will be that one person, but I don’t think that with her divisive past that she will ever get that legislation passed, so she is free to promise what she wants. Look at her husband and the issue of gays in the military…a disaster with a huge backstep called DADT. Does she think in the first hundred days that she can try essentially the same thing with DOMA?
Obama knows what will fly and what won’t. Desegregation and civil rights were not gained by politicians. They were gained when ordinary people refused to play the game anymore–they marched, they sat, they stood up, they spoke, they gathered, they moved, they thought like one person, but they were many. Without Selma, there would be no civil rights, without the crowds that gathered to hear MLK there would be no civil rights. We sometimes think of this as MLK or Rosa Parks or Malcolm X, but it was the people who heard the message and fought for it.
Politicians are never going to want something for us that we don’t want with all our hearts and strive for with all our strength. I’ve been glaringly resistant to political action myself– but every voice and body counts–and when we all risk, then we have a better shot at all winning.

one answer google larry sinclair

Jerome: You must be dreaming. Obama isn’t going to do anything for the gay people. He is campaigning for the presidency to make history. He doesn’t care about you or the white people. He uses the white people for their votes. He is so desperate to win PA he will do anything to win even pay voters to vote for him. He is as underhanded as they come and these analylists that get paid big bucks are as stupid make stupid statements. Most black analylists will defend Obama even if he is wrong
because he is part black. I am hoping the whites start waking up to the fact they are being taken for a fool.

I think that we have gone totally regressive under Bush. Civil rights and tolerance have been beaten out of the law. And it effects people. Hillary is the most vocal about her support of the gay community. She has always had a plan regarding civil unions, the repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell” and hate crime legislation. It was just a matter of time before Obama’s timid support of gays began to mirror Hillary’s…but it’s still not very brave. And he never says anywhere he will repeal “don’t ask don’t tell” The headlines are a lie.The text of all the’s recent stories do not say he will repeal it.
As far as the gay community being misunderstood and especially straight white males being uncomfortable…what else is new. Gays are like any minority subject to discrimination and in particular they are the only minority that are denied civil rights by legislation.
Women are discovering or maybe they don’t all care to see it that the media in general is allowed to bash women and vilify them..I had hoped that we would have taught out sons to respect us….Interesting though the worst abusers are middle aged white men in the media..I think it is an irony that Ferraro was chosen to be painted a racist…Does anyone remember the comments of Bush I that were so offensive in the early 80′s and denounced by most of the press?

None of this should come as any surprise. Plenty of baby boomers prove over and over how inconsistent and untrustworthy that generation is on gay issues. They came of age too early, and many simply will go to their graves never getting past their archaic, almost comical discomfort with these issues. Bill Clinton is Exhibit A.

I am SO sick and tired of BOTH Democrats and Republicans!
It’s time for REAL change!
I’m becoming a Libertarian!