I am really disappointed with some people here on DU. (rant)

[William769]

For being a progressive website, we have some very straight laced people. Who in the hell in their right fucking mind would deny rights to another Americans. (in case you haven't figured it out I'm talking about GLBT issues, We are also Americans & pay our share of taxes).

ON EDIT: spelling

[mr_hat]

1. "Straight laced"? WTF?

[Ian David]

2. I haven't seen a heck of a lot of homophobia on DU

Except for the occasional newbie who usually either sees the light or is shown the door.

[Prism]

13. I have. In a word: Gannon.

That entire episode had me biting down on my tongue very hard. I thought the homophobic slurs and remarks were rampant. But, it was "ok" because the target was a Republican. It was incredibly offensive, and not too many people really took issue with it.

If there's one thing I've learned as a gay man, it's that homophobia cuts across all ideologies, and if you give even the most self-proclaimed tolerants enough rope, they'll hang themselves fifty percent of the time.

I think many gay people have seen this in their lives. "Vote for Democrats! They're pro-gay!" only to watch politician after politician after politician ignore us, give us some bs condescending head-pat response, or just outright shun our concerns.

It is very wearing. I'm not surprised to see the attitude expressed in the Washington Blade article. Myself and many of my gay friends are just about there ourselves. We're getting tired of being the party's sacrificial lamb. "We want to win elections, so, uh, could you guys just keep it down a bit?"

Nope. We won't. And if the party doesn't like that, we certainly can take our time, money, and votes elsewhere.

We support the party unequivocally.

We deserve the same treatment in return. It's really that simple.

[tx_dem41]

15. I agree with you re: Gannon episode

and I was roundly flamed (by straights and gays alike) for stating my thoughts.

[Prism]

22. The gays were the surprise

I thought much of it was just full on gay-bashing, so I was more than a little disappointed to see it so accepted, especially among gay posters. Maybe there was a temptation to be the kicker rather than the kickee for once.

No matter what anyone's politics, I don't believe race, gender, or sexuality are acceptable subjects for mean-spirited mocking. People choose their politics. They don't choose their biological characteristics.

When I was more active in politics, I used to attend progressive meetings. Gay rights would be discussed. Of course we're all for it. Then the meeting was over, and people would mill about and socialize. Since I'm not obviously gay and rarely volunteer the info up front, I'd be privy to some nice little slurs when people didn't think a gay person was around to hear them.

Like I said, it's not an ideological thing. It's a human thing. I don't believe someone's on my side because of the political label they wear or the shallow lip service they pay. Words and actions count.

Those meetings and the Gannon episode set me to wondering if people are as truly interested in gay rights as they claim to be, or if it's just a political pose used to differentiate themselves from the right-wing.

The longer we go without action or support from the party, the more inclined I am to believe it's the latter.

[tx_dem41]

25. Wise words, Prism

I felt like I was living in bizarro world for about a week, because I am straight and was attacking what I perceived as homophobia to gay men and women who were defending it!

Great to meet you!

[Prism]

35. Hi!

Nice to meet you, too :hi:

[Redstone]

18. I really think the lashing of Gannon was a case of "throwing it

back in their faces."

In other words, holding up a mirror to the homophobia of the Right Wing, not any homophobia on the part of DU.

It's the exact same thing as when we express glee whenever some "family values" rightwinger is found with child porn or an extramarital affair.

Redstone

[RandomKoolzip]

28. Exactly.

When the Gannon thing broke, it was the hypocracy we were lampooning, not Gannon's gayness. The GOP is full of pols who promote repression of homosexuals via legislation while they themselves enjoy a private gay life; it's this sort of thing that makes us all go red with outrage. It's them in effect saying "what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander." It's bullshit, it does more harm to the GLBT community than a handful of threads on DU ever could, and it needs to be rooted out an exposed.

[Prism]

34. No offense, but . . .

. . . surely people could point out and mock the hypocrisy without making comments about c***-sucking and being bent over and the like in an incredibly derogatory fashion.

That is the kind of stuff I'm objecting to, and it was all over the place when Gannon-gate was going down.

[tx_dem41]

37. Yes, it most certainly was all over this forum.

I believe the worst was a regular poster posting "First comes love, then comes AIDS...." when talking about Bush and Gannon. It made my heart sink to read that on a progressive forum.

[Prism]

40. I'm glad I missed that . . .

. . . because I would've gone apoplectic. :grr:

[tx_dem41]

45. I'm sorry I rehashed then, for you.

I just wanted to show people how ugly it got, and that you and William aren't imagining this.

[Redstone]

57. Whoah. I never saw that one. THAT was way over the line.

I imagine that poster has more than one correction issued to him. At least I hope so.

Redstone

[A-Schwarzenegger]

48. Bingo.

[Prism]

31. I understand what you're saying

I just don't think homophobic slurs and remarks are acceptable no matter what the stated purpose.

Trashing someone's sexuality to score political points is what right-wingers do. I don't tolerate that. So, why tolerate it from progressives?

It's either always ok, or it's always not ok. It shouldn't shift based on political convenience. I don't want to be kicked around for my sexuality. I won't kick around others for theirs.

[Redstone]

42. I agree. We certainly could have kicked the rightwingers' butts without

using word that homosexuals don't like to hear.

But throwing Gannon's homosexuality in the rightwingers' faces was absolutely cricket. It just should have been done without offending our own gay constituency.

Redstone

[Ian David]

81. I agree. Pretty much what I said, but you managed it with less words

Somewhere in there might have been some real homophobia, but if there was, I think it slipped past me.

[Fleshdancer]

19. You're right.

I was also deeply concerned during the 2004 elections. There were a few discussions about how the Democratic Party should lay low on the Gay rights issue in order to get more votes. For the Democratic Party to abandon equality and civil rights is like the Republican Party turning their back on guns and wealth. Doesn't make any sense.

The Gannon issue has certainly created a large amount of slurs and insults. There are so many legitimate reasons to bash Gannon - his lack of credentials, his lack of intelligence, and certainly his hypocrisy. We don't need to trash homosexuality to take him down.

[Prism]

24. Exactly

Politics, beliefs, opinions, etc. are fair game. Sexuality is not.

[mattclearing]

26. I think John Edwards gets this last bit.

He went out of his way to stand up for gay rights at the primary debates, and didn't hesitate for a second, something I found refreshing when candidates like Kerry tried to hash out an incomprehensible position that worked with religion, previous votes, etc.

[Prism]

38. It's the principle of the thing

I think more centrist and independent voters would respect a candidate who simply stated what he was for very clearly, rather than try to parse it a billion times. "Yeah, I'm for gay marriage, and here's why."

The whole "I'm kinda, sorta, maybe, a lil bit, slightly, somewhat, possibly for some form, metamorphosis, or apparition of legislation for differently-oriented citizens," spiel had me throwing my hands up in the air in frustration. I'd find myself yelling at the TV "Wait, why am I supposed to support you?!"

We give our time and our money, our sweat and our tears. At the very least, please don't flip us off, or piss on our heads while telling us it's raining wine. I just don't think so.

[yurbud]

41. you're using Ann Coulter line, but issue is hypocrisy not gays

Bush got a lot of political mileage out of gay bashing, so it is news if he had a gay prostitute in the White House.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[tx_dem41]

47. Do you think then that its "kosher" to make little jokes...

about "c**ksucking" and "bending over" and AIDS jokes to point out this hypocrisy? Do you think its then okay to snigger and "hee-hee" in followup posts? That's what the OP and Prism are talking about.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[tx_dem41]

65. Please read my post #37...

and tell me how that "delightful" little ditty is anything but disgusting. Its not a "shoe-is-on-the-other-foot" joke.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

66. Are you likening gays & drug addicts?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[A-Schwarzenegger]

86. Translation:

Yes, you did liken gays & drug addicts, but you hope
you can distract from it with hysteria & vitriol.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Ian David]

80. I think you may have been mis-reading the Gannon stuff

My impression wasn't that people were meaning to be homophobic, but were instead calling attention to Republican homophobia by holding out some of their statements for ridicule.

In other words, More like "All in the Family" and not like "The 700 Club."

Perhaps you were looking at different posts than I was. Or perhaps I am the one misreading things.

In any case, I hope people realize that anything I said about Gannon was meant in that spirit, and if anything I said appeared otherwise, than please accept my deepest apologies.

[geek tragedy]

90. I agree. And, of course, when far-right hoax-pushers started rumors

of Karl Rove having homosexual orgies in the White House, people bought into it. (because that's what homosexuals do!)

[Lex]

3. Is there a backstory or context we can get? nt

[Mr_Spock]

4. Yeah, this is a place where gays can count on being picked on

:sarcasm:

[William769]

12. Your sarcasm falls on deaf ears.

[Connie_Corleone]

5. Can you give an example?

[William769]

6. Just read some of the coments here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=14940&mesg_id=14940

I'm not saying all of DU is like this or alot, just a little. I just cannot fathom how someone calls themself a progressive but yey backs away from this issue.

[kevsand]

9. Also in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1690750&mesg_id=1691074

[Misunderestimator]

33. THAT post should be deleted. That's plain bigotry.

[AntiCoup2K4]

76. That poster happens to be a regular at Freak Republic

And I'm sure I wasn't the first to alert on it.

[Misunderestimator]

30. Why not discuss your issues with the thread in THAT thread?

[Redstone]

52. NOW I'm going to diagree with you. I saw NO homophobia in that thread,

unless I missed a message or two.

All I saw as people trying to explain the way politics works.

There are probably few heterosexuals who are stronger supporters of the codification of gay marriage than I am. But what those people said makes sense, and by the way mirrors what I've heard from quite a few homosexuals as well.

They're talking political reality in that thread, not being anti-gay.

Damn it, this crosses the line into unnecessary sensitivity...seeing homophobia where there isn't any.

And when you do that, people stop listening to you. Just a word of advice. Remember 'the little boy who cried wolf?"

Redstone

(Good thing I didn't use the example of the Dutch kid with his finger in the dike; I'd have gotten clobbered by everyone, including the Dutch.)

(That's a joke and if it offends anyone, the offended party is someone who gets offended WAY too easily, in my opinion.)

[William769]

59. Did I ever use the word homophobia ?

If I did use it please show me where. Rights & homophobia are two different things.

[Redstone]

69. Not my pount. My point was that it was a political discussion,

in which people were airing their view on the political possibility of making something happen.

If doing that makes people anti-gay, we might as well just shut DU down now, since it's based on providing people with a place for political discussion.

Redstone

[William769]

70. Your words not mine.

"NOW I'm going to diagree with you. I saw NO homophobia in that thread,".

[Deep13]

7. This is a controversial issue and you have to expect it ...

... to generate debate, especially on item 10. Liberals do not walk in lock step with each other. We leave that for the Rs.

[William769]

8. I don't want to sound rude

But a person that will not fight for these rights is not a liberal.

[rman]

10. better get used to it

75000 people have a lot of different opinions.

by all means do call out those who you think are not liberal, but there's hardly a point in discussing the fact that such people are here.

[Tsiyu]

11. We've been through this with women's issues as well

I would venture to say that most people on this board will sacrifice none of us to see progressives win, but there are always those few who would feed their own kids and cats to Frist if they thought it would help progressives.

You have to battle them, post some sense into them, and not let it get to you. Many of these folks - like our current legislators - are DINOs or out and out Repukes who don't "get" our version of "liberty and justice for ALL.

Hang in there, William769

[Deep13]

14. "I don't want to sound rude"

too late

[SouthernDem2004]

29. Hmmm, I am not a Liberal and yet I support gay marriage etc.

This is Democratic Underground. It is not Progressive Underground or Liberal Underground. It maybe more Liberal then not but there are still other types that are Democrats. We do not all share the exact same views.


Peace

[Finder]

60. Well DU is not just for Democrats...

but those who support democratic principals--progressives, liberals, etc. Rule 1 is:

1. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

I think there are a lot of members who are single issue types and are passionate about a particular item on the platform(or lack of inclusion of said issue) as well as those who are "big tenters" and that leads to some clashes.

I have never seen blatent homophobia tolerated on DU though. There are a few moral absolutists but they are not disrespectful and their inability to debate is related to their religion or bad experiences in their pasts.

[devilgrrl]

16. Oh my... this is sooooo going to turn into a flame fest.

:evilgrin:

[LoZoccolo]

21. Ya think so?

:popcorn:

[Misunderestimator]

17. Care to give a reference to what you are referring?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

20. AGAIN: Hating Bush does not a progressive make.

Trolls aside, there are plenty of people who can't stand Bush
but that is as far as their "liberal" tendencies go. They haven't
yet made the connection between being against the war and being
against the subtler forms of inhumanity.

[omega minimo]

32. "The subtler forms of inhumanity"

come in a rainbow of flavors and colors but are all the same issues. We will start making significant progress when various maligned sub-groups hook up their efforts. One wonders why gay rights issues and women's rights issues are NOT linked in solidarity. Cementing rigid gender roles to keep the status quo's status is all it all comes down to............

The Left is accused of being all over the map and having too many different causes at demonstrations or strategy sessions--

That's cause the causes are interconnected. Yet the dots aren't yet.

People being people, we prefer to roll our little peanuts across the carpet with our noses.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

23. To the extent that there are differing opinions here, you will always be

disappointed with some people here at DU.

[stevietheman]

27. I'm gay and I don't see your point.

Please provide some evidence, as I've been a participant in DU for quite a while, and I haven't detected the problems you are indicating.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[tx_dem41]

53. It stuck with many of us already, because we witnessed it.

Funny how you are trying to dismiss it as not important.

Kind of proves the point of the OP.

[stevietheman]

61. I've had no gay friend even mention the Gannon thing.

And I myself don't find the controversy to be "anti-gay" as much as it is an embarrassment for an administration who plays to the religious right as it does.

[Siena]

36. I think the problem is

that a lot of people are willing to compromise issues to get Dems elected. And this is wrong. This is why Dems are seen as "flip floppers". Having a consistent agenda is important and helps the people know that the candidate is strong. So, I agree with your point William769 to a point. I don't think it's because people are straight laced - I think that it's just because people aren't thinking of the big picture. And we all know the Republicans are great at that! So, good for you on helping open people's eyes.

[tx_dem41]

39. Great post, Siena....

I get attacked all the time for not wanting to compromise my principles in the middle of a fight. Now you have armed me with a new comeback.... "I don't want to be seen as a flip-flopper!".

Thanks, and nice to meet you.

[Siena]

51. Thanks!

And nice to meet you too.

[Deep13]

56. "helping open people's eyes"

Speaking generally, politicians have to represent the sensibilities of the people in their districts etc. to stay in office. Notice I said sensibilities and not policies. Ones that fail to do that get kicked out. To effect policy change, it is imperative that we win elections. There is no point playing this game otherwise. Someone who looses but stuck to his or her values is still a loser. Besides, it takes a kind of huberis to assume ones own views are right while the district he is supposed to be representing is wrong. As the minority party we cannot afford to think otherwise. Instead of ranting about "dinos", look at what the result would have been had that official's R opponent had won.

Many different issues have many different origins and have many different reasons. Just because someone agrees with some issues, does not mean he or she must agree with all of them. Again, I am speaking generally. This party cannot afford the thought police. It is not our job to open people's eyes and educate them on why they are wrong and we are right. This thinking for the past thirty years has resulted in the errosion of our base and put us in a position where the Rs control the whole country except for a few states on each coast. We need to listen and to stop being part of the problem.

[Siena]

58. Well let's agree to disagree.

I hear what you are saying but there is another side to every coin. Any my "open people's eyes" statement simply meant that it is important to remember what we really stand for. And I am not so sure that we couldn't get a candidate elected that would stand on their principles and not back down! I think it's admirable and it's one of the reasons that people do have a problem with the Dems. They seem to change their mind to satisfy the masses and this is seen as weak and a detriment. Hence, how a war hero democrat can be seen as weak next to a chicken hawk republican. As much as we hate what he's saying, W says what he means and does not back down. This makes him look "tough". I would love to see a Dem do that and I argue that there would be more backing than you think.

[Deep13]

63. okay

:toast:

[yurbud]

43. If Hitler had a Jewish girlfriend, would it be news?

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[yurbud]

44. and would it be anti-Semitic to point out the hypocrisy?

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[tx_dem41]

49. Would it be anti-Semitic to post

"Jew" jokes while pointing out this hypocrisy?

You bet it would!

[yurbud]

54. Is my post the "jew joke" or are you referring to a gannon post?

Any jokes I made about it were purely at the expense of the Bushies.



Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[tx_dem41]

55. I was not referencing anything you said.

Apologize if it appeared that way. I am referencing many, many posts that were made back at that time.

[yurbud]

62. no problem

I wasn't taking offense, just wondering.




Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[comsymp]

87. I've been following your posts in this thread and have finally found

one with which I disagree:

"I am referencing many, many posts that were made back at that time."

Back at the time? From my reading, those posts are still occurring.

In some of the Crawford threads, crap like "Wonder if * will invite Gannyguck down to "comfort" him... heh heh" kinda shit still abounds.

Hell, there was even a post Friday regarding the ProtestKeyboardWarriors whose sole criticism of the ringleaders was that they "look really gay."

[yurbud]

46. any new developments on Gannon that incited this PR spin?

It seems like this topic has been covered several times, and I didn't see anything in the news that inspired a new round of trying to spin this as left wing homophobia, possibly the lamest talking point before the attacks on Cindy Sheehan.



Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[titoresque]

67. I'm gay but

I certainly wouldnt stick up for Gannon. I think theres a big difference with being perverted and being gay/lesbian.

I think what Gannon participated in as far as the White House goes, assuming he is really having sex with staff...is a form of perversion. These are people who claim to be Straight Christians....anything less is an abomination. So for Gannon to knowingly participate sexually with white house officials is in my opinion perversion.

However, Im new here at DU and have not read thru any of the past posts regarding Gannon, so I can't comment directly on my interpretation of previous jokes, whether they were outright biggoted or maybe just inconsiderate.

[titoresque]

68. sorry linked

to the wrong poster....should have been linked to prism

[MalibuChloe]

79. Me too, Tit....

I wasn't here for the Gannon threads, either, but I can kind of understand bashing him for his gay-related "activities." it's all about exposing hypocrisy.

I don't feel that a president's youthful drug experimentation should be considered when he is running for office, but when it was revealed that Bush snorted coke, I was all over that. Why? Because those fuckers dragged Clinton through the mud for smoking weed!

It's all about hypocrisy, not homophobia.

[titoresque]

85. LOL I was wondering when I

would be called "tit"
eek, maybe should change name? :)
It's Titor, as in John Titor and things being titor...esque :)
Not that you asked LOL!

[Zhade]

72. Thanks, it sickens me too.

Especially the thread the other day wherein a DUer newbie was going on about "the gays" costing us politically, and how equal rights should be abandoned for political expediency.

Even worse, only a couple of DUers even bothered to tell him how bigoted his remarks were. Sad.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

73. Because telling people their remarks are bigoted even when they are

will get your posts deleted. Take it from me.

A few weeks ago a person who was a disruptor had three threads open including one saying he advocated for overturning Roe V Wade and only supported birth control in cases of incest. His threads were open for over 15 hours .... he was told by other Du'ers that he was mainstream and he was welcomed to the party with open arms with very few people challenging him. I was given more hell than HE was!

[Zhade]

75. This place, like America, is being seduced into acceptance of fascism.

I've seen any numbers of threads where people defend Ratzinger's bigoted homophobia...repeat rw talking points on everything from Sheehan to Iran to Chavez to Iraqi insurgents...

It's disturbing. At one point, I was directly compared to Klansmen and Nazis (wrongly, as I expressed nothing bigoted against Catholics while denouncing the Catholic Church leadership's homophobia and bigotry toward us GLBTers) - and it took almost a WEEK for those posts to be (rightly) deleted.

I don't know what to think of this place anymore.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[MalibuChloe]

93. i haven't been here very long but -

i have seen far more anti-woman threads than anti-gay ones, although I don't doubt there have been some.

i can't imagine that there were people on here defending ratzinger! i'm glad i missed that.

[Guaranteed]

77. Abortion is a difficult issue for people to get their minds around.

You have to explain it to them.

[Ian David]

82. Yeah, and damn those black slaves for getting Lincon assassinated

All because they wanted to be free.

:sarcasm:

[hippiegranny]

74. who are you talking about?

i've been here since 2001; usually the people who are less tolerant are trolls.

hippie (gay) granny

[devilgrrl]

78. Too bad. Log Cabin/closeted Repugnicans are assholes...

who make a concerted effort to make a certain segment of society (that they belong to!) as miserable as possible for nothing more than political/capital gain. So you if you have a problem with people (many of whom are gay themselves) calling them out on their hypocracy... TOUGH F***ING BEANS!!! - DEAL WITH IT!@!!!

:rant:

[Ian David]

83. My problem is with The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands

I'm not anti-gay, I just think they need to end their illegal occupation and return the land back to the Australians they stole it from.

:sarcasm:

Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands is a micronation established as a political protest by a group of gay rights activists based in southeast Queensland. On June 14, 2004, the group 'claimed' the Coral Sea Island Territory and 'seceded' from Australia after sailing to the largest island in the group and raising the rainbow flag there. Their claim is not recognised by any state, and as no permanent settlement has been established, the Coral Sea Islands remain uninhabited. The 'secession' was in protest at a decision to ban gay marriage made by the Australian parliament. The 'government' is reported as being a constitutional monarchy, led by an emperor. The official flag is the rainbow flag, and the group offers 'citizenship' to all LGBT people and their friends.

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_and_Lesbian_Kingdom_of_the_Coral_Sea_Islands

[Duncan Grant]

84. Sometimes you'll see it spun as "Pragmatism".

Send me a PM when you see this one and we'll commiserate:

"I'm a pragmatic Democrat, I just want to win elections. I fully support DU being a big-tent, if someone is a little right of center - well, that's okay - they more accurately represent MAINSTREAM (wink, wink) Democrats."

:grr:

[geek tragedy]

91. There are three general categories of DU'ers on the issue:

1) The idealists, who demand that we push gay marriage, regardless of the consequences for either homosexuals or electoral politics;

2) The pragmatics, who think we should push for civil unions but not use the "m" word for another twenty years, after which time we'll get to use that too because no one will give a rip about distinguishing between gay marriage and civil unions;

3) The cowards, who want to throw gays and women overboard in an attempt to pander.

Obviously, the third group are a bit distasteful. But I myself belong in the second category--not because I oppose the right of homosexuals to get "married"--but rather because I think this is the best path to short-term AND long-term success.

[titoresque]

92. yikes!

do you know much about the difference between civil union and marriage in the legal sense?
If you're gay........please get to know the difference.........if you're straight, please get to know the difference.

I personally do'nt give a shit what you call it, I'm a woman MARRIED to a woman, have been for 9 years. But in the legal sense.....Civil Union will not cover me under SS benefits if my wife dies, and she is the bread winner so that is very important in our lives. It will not cover us as far as estate issues. And why should we have to hire a lawyer and spend possible thousands to make sure we receive all of what we PAY for yearly via our taxes because SOME people can't stomache the word EQUALITY?????

[geek tragedy]

94. To clarify: by "civil unions" I meant 100% legal equality eom

[titoresque]

95. ok maybe I don't

understand then. Is it just the wording we're talking about here?

[Technowitch]

96. Locking

This thread turned into a flamewar.

-Technowitch
DU Moderator