What's illuminating is how this episode has caused the masks to slip on so many here

[ruggerson]

And the sad thing is that many are exactly what I suspected them to be.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. I'm pretty amazed too at what I'm seeing nt

[Howzit]

2. Could you explain what you are talking about, please?

Your headline is intriguing, but I have no clue what you are on about as I don't read everything or everyday...

[peace13]

3. You'll never know the folks who haven't checked in...

because of remarks like this. I am dumbfounded by the hate that has been demonstrated here. If a person speaks out they are smashed with unkind response. It is a sad day for all of us. We are truly *ucked in this country and this planet. This whole scene reminds me of when my mom ran from my dad and we landed at my grandmother's house. It was chaos for us kids. My grandmothers comment was that, 'These things always hurt the older folks the hardest.' OK, so there is so much pain to go around but chances are there is someone else nearby with a pain of their own. After watching these conversations I am certain that there will never be a solution to the problem. How do I know this? Because this situation has served to alienate, demean and condemn those who were or would be supporters. Peace to you, kim

[ruggerson]

7. somehow I'm not convinced

that people feeling alienated from expressing their opinions on a message board is rationally comparable to people who are being institutionally discriminated against by their own government and living Jim Crow lives in 2009 America. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

Best Regards.

[BeFree]

16. yeah

I could feel that I have been abused, alienated and demeaned. And I do, just a little.
But in 7 years here I have learned no to take any of this too personal. Its just a discussion forum.


There may never be a solution because of the way it is being approached, as seen right here on DU where ostensible supporters are treated like shit. But it needs to be solved because everybody's freedom hinges on everybody's freedom.

So, we'll see. Peace.

[yardwork]

154. "...smashed with unkind responses" like being denied equal human rights?

Yes, I do feel alienated, demeaned, and condemned - by the laws in this country and people like Rick Warren who promote them.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

161. I think you put it most succinctly and I fully support your cause.

I do think Obama will come around and hope he does the right thing. It took me a while to fully comprehend the pain and hurt so many feel here. I don't blame anyone for lashing out when they see basic rights and freedom being denied. I know that there will eventually come a time when the equal rights that so many people here are demanding and deserve are granted, but I also know that for every day that justice is delayed, it comes yet one more day too late. While I continue to support Obama as President, I support your cause even more.

[yardwork]

167. Thank you very, very much!

Yours is a very kind and healing response to some very hurtful things that have been said around here. I wish you the very best!

[Trajan]

4. Damn you have everybody figured out ....

*slowly tiptoes out the door ... grabbing the fruitcake and slipping it under my coat on the way out*

(You knew I was going to do that ... huh .....)

[Divine Discontent]

158. ha!

I once took a cheesecake from a party I was at where I was subjected to horrible childish behavior by the drunks who were hosting it and after the couple had got done screaming at each other, my friend and I took off out the door with the cheesecake THEY bought for the party, figuring we deserved it in peace for the hell they had just subjected us, too! It was hysterical to us.

[mondo joe]

5. That's how it always is.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Midlodemocrat]

30. You're still here?

Huh.

[Unsane]

31. Yeppers.

Why wouldn't I be?

[Midlodemocrat]

34. Oh, I don't know. Maybe because

you're a ...... Fill in the blanks. :eyes:

[thewiseguy]

50. Agreed.

:thumbsup:

[ruggerson]

61. check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3655108&mesg_id=3655316

[RetroLounge]

77. And an obvious one

:puke:

RL

[Quixote1818]

8. It's clear now! The communists are all over DU!

Thanks Mr. McCarty for pointing that out.

These kinds of posts do nothing but divide DU. There are mostly good people on both sides of this issue. It is a very difficult and abstract issue and both sides should be respected in the debate, not pointed at and fingered as evil.

[ruggerson]

10. How can you have good people against equality?

I'm serious. Explain it to me.

[Quixote1818]

12. I would suggest to you that 98% of those on DU are for equality for gays.

The debate is an abstract one based on dozens of underlying things.

I think Thom Hartmann expresses how a lot of DUers feel. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/18-10

[ruggerson]

13. From where do you derive that statistic?

[Quixote1818]

17. It's just a guess. nt

[IndianaJones]

18. the 45% that think opposition to gay marriage isn't homophobic. nt.

[ruggerson]

20. that's what I had imagined

[Quixote1818]

23. I am for Gay Marriage but you are suggesting Obama, Biden, Clinton

and everyone but Dennis Kucinich are Homophobes.

[mondo joe]

24. It's hard to see what else one can conclude.

There are varying degrees of homophobia, of course.

But if you're against equal rights for gays, there is no other conclusion I can draw (other than that someone may be lying for political reasons).

[Quixote1818]

41. I think a lot of religious people see the term "Marriage" as a religious term

like for instance a "First Communion". Not necessarily a political thing. It's more connected with ancient religions. They feel someone is trying to change their religion. Personally I think it's a bunch of BS but I am agnostic so if Agnostics had Marriage then Gay Marriage would most certainly be cool but marriage didn't come from Agnostics.

While I don't understand why it's important for them to protect that part of their religion's teachings I can see why a religious person would view it as a religious thing rather than a state thing.

Personally I think the Government should stay out of "Marriage" period. Anything done under the state should be called a "Civil Union" rather gay or straight. Leave Marriage to the churches because that is where the term came from. If people want to get married then find a church that allows gay marriage like the Methodist church does and have a religious wedding. Or perhaps the Government should call it what that church calls it? So if gays want to get married then do it in a Unitarian or Methodist Church. But if the state performs the ceremony then call it a "Union" between two people, gay or straight.

[mondo joe]

44. I think you're explaining their homophobia.

But that doesn't deny it, in my opinion.

People have been racists for all sorts of reasons. Some of it nearly benign - they're just going with what they grew up with, and maybe have never thought about.

You don't have to be Fred Phelps to be homophobic.

[ruggerson]

45. So you're giving them latitude

because they misunderstand and/or intentionally distort the issue?

What is at hand here is civil marriage, as you know.

The piece of paper one gets at the courthouse has nothing to do with religion.

[No Elephants]

141. I disagree. I think most homophobes deliberately pretend their opposition to gay marriage is about

religion v. secular, about protecting their own marriage, about protecting the institution or marriage, etc. But they know that none of that is true. The just don't want gays to marry, period. However, they also don't want to say they are homophobes and take responsiblity for that. So, they give you one obfuscation or another, like "Oh, I'm not a homophobe. I love gays. (silently: Love the sinner, but hate the sin.") Barf. Don't fall for the bs.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

184. Not too long ago, these same type of people rationalized barring interracial marriages. BS is right!

[AntiFascist]

150. The problem is the timing of this whole mess....

we are still fighting an important legal battle in California where civil unions are not a viable option. The California Supreme Court has already ruled that gays and lesbians are entitled to the Fundamental Right of marriage. Putting religion in the spotlight only confuses things.

[yardwork]

155. Not to mention the 40 other states where neither marriage nor civil unions are options.

Not very likely to be options anytime soon, either. Along with the right to adopt.

It seems to me that it's obvious that a country that can't manage to provide equal rights to a minority group is probably going to have a lot of other problems, but this logic appears to escape many people here.

[awoke_in_2003]

191. until just recently

in the history of christianity, religion was used to justify slavery and racism.

[ruggerson]

27. in some ways they are

and cowards to boot. Because I am not convinced that in private they don't really support marriage equality, but cower under the assumption that they could never get elected were they to acknowledge their true feelings on the matter.

[totodeinhere]

170. I think the word "coward" is a bit too strong.

I would call them political realists. After all, a politician's first instinct is usually to say and do whatever is necessary to get elected or reelected. But I do agree that most likely they are privately for gay marriage. Of course, their private feelings don't help the cause.

[IndianaJones]

28. it is a bigoted stance. I wouldn't argue that it is not homophobic. nt.

[Marrah_G]

174. Perhaps

But I think it more likely that they are politicians, scared to take a risk, scared to say what they truly think or feel. Constantly worried about the next election.

Just imagine if our politicians were honest.

That is a rare thing indeed.

[awoke_in_2003]

190. Well, is it racist...

to say black and white couples (or white and mexican in my case) can have civil unions but not marriage?

[galaxy21]

37. As far as that poll is concerned

Someone had a great post on there that made a good point about it being republicans who thought in that 'black and white' mentality. Liberals don't.

Not everyone who hasn't come around to gay marriage is Fred Phelps. Gay marriage is a (relatively) new thing. It takes some time to get used to. People have grown up used to cross sex marriages, possibly lived most of their lives with that idea of marriage, and now they're being asked to adapt their ideas. These people support gay rights, are appalled by hate crimes, and have no real problem with gay people or legal equality...the word marriage just freaks them out. It is unfair to call anyone supportive of gay rights 'homophobic'. Homophobic people, real homophobic people, are a lot more scarier than these people.

I've always been naturally liberal, so gay marriage was easy to agree with. But what if I wasn't so liberal? Or I was a lot older? Maybe I would have trouble.

This 'all or nothing' approach is unwise, and I don't think it will help get gay marriage passed anywhere.

[mondo joe]

42. Fred Phelps isn't the low end of homophobia. He's the high end.

There's a lot of homophobia between here and there.

But you're acting like segregationists aren't racists just because they're not in the Klan.

[galaxy21]

48. Its the total lack of empathy I don't understand

Can you not just imagine, for one minute, why its difficult for people to come around to the idea?I 've never had one issue with gay marriage, but even I can understand why someone would.


"There's a lot of homophobia between here and there."

The poll question was 'are they homophobic?' The word 'homophobe' is a very nasty word that conjures up a lot of unpleasant imagines- mainly the Phelps clan. Calling someone homophobic is a very serious charge, that should not be thrown around like it means nothing. Especially if they're genereally supportive of gay rights and civil unions.

"But you're acting like segregationists aren't racists just because they're not in the Klan."

The segregationists comparision is unfair because, in this instance, people are for gay rights, just not this specific one. Its been a while since I studied American history, but the segregationists were against most black rights, not just one.

[IndianaJones]

51. can you understand why someone would have a problem with interracial marriage? nt.

[galaxy21]

57. "can you understand why someone would have a problem with interracial marriage?"

No, because they've had fifty years to get used to the idea. Gay marriage has been a mainstream issue for around 5 years and only in the last year or so has there been a real push for it.

[mondo joe]

65. So people who opposed interracial marriage in 1970 weren't racists?

But they are now?

[galaxy21]

79. My reponse

People are products of their time. By today's standards Abe Lincoln was a white supremist. Somebody raised in a home and taught that interacial marriage was bad? They wouldn't know any better. So yes, I empathise with someone not getting the information that they need.

However, after the Loving case, when it was made clear how wrong it was to have that mindset, and entered national consciousness, then no, I can't empathise with them because there is no reason they can't know any better.

[mondo joe]

84. At what point in time were people opposed to interracial marriage not racists?

?

[IndianaJones]

66. so the people that opposed race mingling 50 years ago weren't racists? nt.

[Solon]

67. Most people weren't used to the idea until about 1990...

That's when 51% of the nation finally said they had no problem with interracial marriage. In 1989, would you have empathized with the majority position?

[eridani]

157. The courts, in Loving vs Virginia, said "Tough shit. Get over it."

So it took 30 years. You start out insisting on justice, and eventually people will get used to it.

[Solon]

62. Damn, didn't see your post before I posted mine.

I wonder how this poster voted in my interracial marriage poll.

[No Elephants]

143. No. However, if someone has a problem with it, they have a problem with it. They have no right to

prohibit it, though. That's the key.

[Solon]

56. Do you empathize with those who are against interracial marriage?

But are for equality otherwise?

[galaxy21]

see above post

[mondo joe]

70. At what point in time were people opposed to interracial marriage not racists?

[IndianaJones]

71. when it was new. also, slave owners weren't racist until the 1850's or so. nt.

[mondo joe]

72. You always fake me out But I do wonder if Galaxy will ever really answer my question.

[galaxy21]

58. see above post

[mondo joe]

60. I can imagine, but that doesn't mean it's not homophobia.

You can want me to pretty it up so it sounds nicer, but I can't because it's not true.

And segregation is the perfect corollary. There were segregationists who didn't want blacks enslaved, or not able to vote - they just didn't want their daughter to go to school with them and end up marrying one.

Hell, Jesse Helms never came out with legislation to take away the right of blacks to vote, or own property, or marry. But he was still a racist.

Racism is a nasty word. Homophobia is too. But opposing equal rights, for any reason, is nastier.

[galaxy21]

89. "You can want me to pretty it up so it sounds nicer, but I can't because it's not true."

I think you should stop villiyfying 65% of Americans and setting back the gay rights cause ever further.

"And segregation is the perfect corollary. There were segregationists who didn't want blacks enslaved, or not able to vote - they just didn't want their daughter to go to school with them and end up marrying one."

With most segregationisits, it was a lot more than not wanting their 'daughter to marry one'. That time of history would have been a lot less demonised if that had been the only issue at stake.


"Racism is a nasty word. Homophobia is too. But opposing equal rights, for any reason, is nastier."

And if people don't even realize its an equal rights issue?

[mondo joe]

91. I'm not going to lie, no matter how you ask. People opposed to interracial marriage

were because of racism, no matter what year. People opposed to same sex marriage are so because of homophobia.

They may come by their homophobia in a lot of ways - ignorance, it's what they were taught, they never thought about it, whatever - it's still homophobia.

[galaxy21]

93. "They may come by their homophobia in a lot of ways - ignorance, it's what they were taught, they

never thought about it, whatever - it's still homophobia."


Even if that were true, and I'm not saying it is, calling them homophobic bigots is going to do what exactly? Does anyone ever respond well to being insulted? Ever?

[mondo joe]

95. Firstly, I'm just telling you the truth. These are are reasons behing homophobia,

just as they are all reasons behind racism.

But homophobia and racism they are, and your desire to pretty it up is not relevant.

If you want to discuss strategy that's a separate topic. But don't muddle strategy with truth. They often take different courses.

[galaxy21]

107. I'll be honest: I think your attitude makes it impossible for you to personally convince someone

otherwise.

My problem with republicans is they want this dreamlike America of the 1950s (the one that never existed, but don't tell them) only, actual, real people keep getting in the way. They want idealized people. And when they can't get that, they judge.

And I think folks on here can want idealized people, too, Just a different version of it. And when some people on here don't get what they want, they judge, as well.

[mondo joe]

113. The truth is not dependent on my attitude or any other personal factors.

I don't expect idealized people.

And it's not a judgment, but a fact. If you oppose equal rights for people because of their sexual orientation, it's homophobia. You may have reasons for it, as people do for racism, but it's still what it is.

If that makes you feel bad, I can't help it, nor can I change the truth.

[galaxy21]

115. "I don't expect idealized people"

I think if you have people that have grown up with the idea of cross sex marriage, never known anything else for as long as they've lived, then say to them 'we need you to adapt your view right now or you're a bad person' then that's unrealistic to expect them to change at that moment. Most people need time, and we've seen that. In 2000 in California, almost 60% dissaproved of gay marriage, now its 52%. That's progress.

[mondo joe]

144. Who said there hasn't been progress? There has been.

But I still can't lie and say homophobia and racism aren't what they are.

I didn't say anything about any "bad person" - that's your projection.

[Splinter Cell]

182. Bingo

[No Elephants]

146. Which people are for gay rights, just not for marriage? Obama claims that, but

I don't believe him. I think his stance is based on what he thinks he needs to say to get eleccted. In some ways, I hope I'm right about that; and in some ways I hope I'm wrong. It's a toughie.

However, I think most people who are against gay marriage wish that gays were never in their face, not in parades, not holding hands as they walk in public, not kissing and not marrying. However, if you have to give them something, give them civil union. And few politicians who believe otherwise have the courage to buck that crowd.

[No Elephants]

142. It is not the word marriage that freaks them out. It's

gays.

I very much doubt that anyone over 20 does not realize that marriage can be totally secular. There already is a term for a church marriage. It's called Holy Matrimony. So heteros have two ways to marry and gays have none.

Civil unions are discriminatory. In one breath, you say you are a lifelong liberal with no problem about same gender marriage. Iin the next sentence, you say gays fighting for equal rights is unwise. They should accpet the Plessy v. Ferguson version. *shrugs*

[galaxy21]

179. "you say gays fighting for equal rights is unwise"

Read my post, again. I said gay people fighting for equal rights with the 'all or nothing' approach was unwise.

[Quixote1818]

152. How about this poll?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8021642&mesg_id=8021642

[Quixote1818]

148. I was wrong, It is only about 95%. See poll.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8021642&mesg_id=8021642

[Clovis Sangrail]

19. I dont' think you do

you have people who differ in tactics and in which battles they see as worth fighting.
:shrug:

[Quixote1818]

21. Thank you. nt

[Trajan]

64. THAT is a non sequitur ....

Claiming grudging support of Obama is somehow 'against equality' is a real stretch ... And wholly unfair ...

[Fearless]

15. As much a joke that is...

There is an element of literal truth to that as of late... I love panics. They truly bring out the best in people.

:rofl:

[Skittles]

189. what a pantload

the OP is pointing out that a disturbing number of DUers do NOT support civil rights for gay folk - THAT IS A FACT

[chascarrillo]

9. Lucky you. I was naive and trusting and felt that support for gay rights was assumed for all @ DU.

My faith in humanity took a hit this week.

I also feel extra burned because I defended Obama through the McClurkin fiasco, only to have him do the same goddamn thing again. Hell, not the same damn thing - worse! McClurkin, you could reason away because he was only supposed to be singing. Warren has been given the preeminent slot in the inauguration festivities. It's absolutely sickening.

[awoke_in_2003]

192. If it makes you feel better...

there is a lot of us here that support the rights of ALL people, especially straight guys like me who are in an interracial marriage and have a sister who is a lesbian. Equal rights for all, or none.

[AllentownJake]

11. The masks were off from the time I joined till June

You may have not noticed it as much because you supported one side or the other and some people might have been on your side but people's behavior was on full display than calmed down for a while.

Remember 7 months ago there were secret list of people who needed to be banned, alternative websites where people planned coordinated attacks on the other side on here, trolls on those websites who would foil said plans and celebration threads of longtime posters being banned and I say this as someone who was guilty of participating in the last thing.

Unless they joined after June...you pretty much knew who people were.

[Danger Mouse]

198. Yes, the primary rehash is in full swing, with some of the old players lining up at the battle lines

[Fearless]

14. Who are you to suspect?

No one gets to decide how other people feel or think. For better or worse, that's life. We talk about going along with the party as a bad thing, and then tell those who do go along with the party are bad people. This with us or against us mentality is what is crippling this party. We cannot function together for some reason. It is truly inexplicable

[galaxy21]

22. everyone on here supports gay rights, including marriage

I think the real problem we have is how to deal with everyone that doesn't agree with those views. And that includes Barack, and a lot of other high profile democrats. Some think they're as bigoted as anyone, some people don't.

[LostinVA]

25. Well no, they don't -- especially gay marriage -- even though they are supposed to

All DU threads and polls about marriage equality show quite a few posters don't agree with we marriage equality.

[mondo joe]

26. Well that's not really true. Several long time DUers - include some long timers

- have said they're not.

A number of them were booted once they made their declarations.

[Midlodemocrat]

29. Actually, that's untrue. There are many,many people here who

do not support equal rights for the GLBT community. It's quite shocking, no, actually, it's sad.

[marimour]

33. i doubt thats true.

In all of those polls there was an extremely small # of people who didn't support equal rights. And since polls are anonymous then there is no reason for them to lie. What there is more disagreement on is how to go about it and the level of anger among various people, most of whom (over 95%) support equal rights. Not being outraged about Warren saying a prayer at the inauguration in now way says you don't support equal rights for all and are a bigot. And sadly this is what we are being accused of being.

[Midlodemocrat]

39. Doubt what you want.

I've been here for years. I've seen it. It's incredibly ugly.

[awoke_in_2003]

193. Have you been paying attention...

for the last couple days? This Warren fiasco has caused a lot of peoples masks to come off.

[Quixote1818]

151. Sorry, only about 5%. See poll.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8021642&mesg_id=8021642

[jenmito]

32. I agree. I never knew so many liberals could be so CRUEL to fellow liberals by calling

them everything from "bigots" to "trash" while telling them to F*** off, even after we tell them we're for gay marriage and for total equal rights for the GLBT community, that we wished Obama would have chosen someone else to give the invocation, and on and on. I've never been so insulted and trashed in my life as I've been by my supposed-fellow-libs. here.

[mondo joe]

35. If you feel trashed by this, imagine being gay and having one of Prop8's leaders honored

by the President you helped to elect.

[marimour]

36. it will pass.

I felt like this at times during the primaries too but things turned our for the best. I honestly believe that the DOMA and/or don't ask don't tell will be reversed during his 1st term. If it happens, it would make these posters calling us and even Obama bigots look really really petty.

[jenmito]

43. I hope so, but "this episode has caused the masks to slip on so many here"

and that's sad. I hope you're right and I have no doubt Obama will keep his word on repealing DOMA, DADT, and doing everything else he promised.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beausoir]

122. Cry me a river.

You were one of the worst offenders during the primaries.

Karma.

[jenmito]

123. WHAT??? Give me ONE example-my posts are all there. n/t

[1awake]

128. thats bad

now imagine being treated like a second class citizen for your entire life.. and parents lives.. and on. Imagine loving someone and having people tell you your sick, or a deviant. Picture living in a society where they make fun of you, crack jokes, and portray people like you as freaks. Where that same society denies you and your partner medical coverage, or legal rights, and of the same things you and I have and rarely give it a second thought. Where so many people actively try and convert others against you saying your evil; and that by somehow if you are given rights of any kind.. small or large.. your very existence is not only an abomination to God, but a clear and present threat to all men women and children who hold their rights dear.

... then.. add on all the insults that you posted above, because they have been coming from both sides.. and that is how many people feel the way they feel. To me.. it's like complaining about a papercut someone gave you when they are suffering from a knife wound.


~LK~

[jenmito]

133. I was responding to the OP...

Being gay, which I'm not, would be the only way I'd be able to experience what gay people go through. All I CAN do and DO do is support gay people and the causes which are important to them. I have a gay person in my family and maybe THAT'S why I'm so deeply offended when people call me names for NO reason and without knowing me or my life. (And I would never accuse people who DON'T have gay people in their families of being insensitive or bigoted towards gay people with no reason.) I have YET to see ANYONE quote ANYTHING I said that is bigoted. But that doesn't stop them.

[1awake]

134. I haven't accused you of anything

and have no intention of doing so. What I was trying to get at is a question of perspective. Stop worrying about what you said.. or what people say you said for a minute. You, in my opinion are not a bigot. But I wish people could put whats going on into a perspective that isn't based on their own hurt feelings (not accusing you of this). Again, like I said above.. its like comparing a papercut to a knife wound, and people don't seem to see that because they have been insulted, or don't see the bigger picture. This stopped being about Warren some time ago it seems.

Peace

~LK~

[jenmito]

137. Sorry...

I guess I'm being too defensive after the abuse I've taken from others. Thanks for not thinking I'm a bigot. It's nice to hear. And I most certainly understand what you're saying (and I never complained about MY feelings until I was verbally attacked by people who I THOUGHT I was on the same side as, and I was not one of those people who told anyone to "STFU" or to "get over it"). If you read my other posts here you'd know I'm very badly disabled and I resent people assuming I have such an easy life because I'm not gay. But I will continue to support total and complete rights for gay people who I know and who I DON'T know.

Peace.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. If you find a post which opposes civil rights for gays, alert on it.

But, failing that, I wouldn't put too much trust in your Bush-esque ability to look into the souls of people you've never met.

[ProSense]

49. You have seen post opposing civil rights for gays? n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. No, I have not.

I suspect that the OP reads a different DU than the one I'm familiar with.

[mondo joe]

78. I know of several that have been deleted, and several posters tombstoned, this

weekend alone, over it.

[ProSense]

46. What's illuminating is that people appear to believe that every DUer is a gay marriage activist.

Some appear to expect that to be the case. People are here for a lot of reasons. There are more than 100,000 DUers. As for the Warren issue: I've seen a lot of people defending the right to move on from this issue while stating their disappointment with Warren's selection. I've seen seen gay DUers and others who are strong advocates of gay marriage defend moving on because there appears to be no movement from Obama and there are other pressing issues.

Gay marriage is an issue, here, around the blogosphere and offline, but it is not the only issue. For some, there are more pressing issue, and you may not like it, but that's the reality. If it was the primary issue for everyone, then everyone would have supported Kucinich.

Still, I've seen people here attack others using gay rights as justification for the attack when the thread had nothing to do with civil rights involving any group.

I oppose Rick Warren because he's a wingnut and he doesn't deserve to be given this high-profile platform at this inauguration. The symbolism is disheartening, and I have no doubt it will validate him whenever he speaks out against the agenda Obama is trying to implement.

[mondo joe]

52. Nonsense. You don't have to be an activist to agree with what's right.

I'm not an environmental activist. I try to do my part, but I'm not likely to protest or dedicate free time to the cause.

But I'm also not going to mock environmentalists for being activists, or dismiss them.

To the contrary: I'm glad to have activists in areas that I'm not, so we can all get more done.

ALL THAT SAID, I thank you for your sentiment, and your last paragraph especially.

[ProSense]

55. Again, you are assuming that everyone has to hold your view.

Maybe they actually agree with Hillary and Obama's position. I haven't seen it, but that is what you are assuming.

[mondo joe]

69. HAS TO? No one HAS TO hold to my view. They could be opposed to equal rights.

That's their choice.

[ProSense]

74. Who is opposed to equal rights?

Hillary? Obama?

[mondo joe]

75. Yes.

Edit to add: Unless they're lying.

[ProSense]

82. Well, if that's what you believe. So be it. n/t

[mondo joe]

83. It's rather a matter of fact, as well as DU policy. NT

[ProSense]

98. Actually, here are the rules

Discussion Forum Rules
These are the basic rules. For a detailed explanation of how we enforce these rules, please click here.

Last updated November 7, 2005.

1. This is a moderated discussion forum with rules. We have a team of volunteer moderators who delete posts and ban disruptors. Members are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with our rules, and make an effort to become a positive member of our community. Those who do not risk having their posts deleted or their posting privileges revoked.
2. 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.
3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.
4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.
5. Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original.
6. Forum Administration: Respect the moderators and administrators, and respect their decisions. You can help make their job easier by clicking the "Alert" link on any post that might need moderator attention. Please understand that moderating errors and inconsistencies are inevitable on a large website like this. If you have a question about DU policies, or if you have a concern about an action a moderator has taken, please contact an admin privately.
7. More Information: For a detailed explanation of how we enforce these rules, please click here.

They actually support my point.

[Starry Messenger]

100. He made a later post that specified the rules in this instance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1324374&mesg_id=1324374

I'm not sure why it hasn't been put into the main rules page.

[ProSense]

104. It still makes the same point:

3. If you are opposed to gay rights, you are a homophobe. Don't share that particular point of view here or else you're going to get banned. You've been warned.

4. If your explanation for why we lost is based entirely (or almost entirely) on gay rights, then you are scapegoating and you're probably a homophobe. You might get banned.

5. If you are arguing that the party needs to abandon support for gay rights entirely, then you might not be an outright homophobe, but in my opinion you are not sufficiently supportive of equal rights.

6. It is not homophobic to point out the obvious truth that there are large numbers of people in large regions of the country who are opposed to gay rights. ON EDIT: It also not homophobic to point out that political candidates, particularly those running in conservative areas, may have to compromise on the issue of gay rights for the purposes of political expediency.

7. I believe that we need to focus on the question of how our party can be competitive nationally without abandoning this core principle. I believe that gay rights is not a make-or-break issue for a majority of voters in any state. The opinions of hard-core homophobes notwithstanding, my impression is that most Americans are supportive of the idea that people should be able to live their lives how they like. How do we convince potential voters that they need not be afraid? How do we convince potential voters that they should care more about their job and their health care and their children than about who some stranger falls in love with? These are the questions we need to be asking.

We are right on this issue, I have no doubt. In 40 years, we are going to look back at opposition to gay marriage as something as bigoted and anachronistic as opposition to interracial marriage.

[Starry Messenger]

105. I think I am totally lost then.

I will bow out! :hi:

[JohnnieGordon]

116. No you're not, bookmark this, and alert any anti gay-marriage post you like

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4689492&mesg_id=4690268

Include Skinner's quote and the link and they will delete it.

[Starry Messenger]

117. Oh, I do.

This one got zapped today I think you saw:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=223283

[JohnnieGordon]

118. That was the "homophobia less important than racism" guy

But just stating an opposition to gay marriage alone can get their post deleted (which is what ProSense was denying.) And if they're being obnoxious about it, they'll get tombstoned.

[ProSense]

119. Not only are you misrepresenting what I said, but you have no idea

why a post was deleted. You are misrepresenting what these comment by Skinner mean. People will have varying opinions, but that is not the same thing as advocating against gay rights.

There are large parts of this country where gay marriage is not popular. There are many places in this country where gay marriage would not fly, but civil unions might be an attainable goal. Indeed, in almost every state, civil unions would be a step in the right direction. I don't see why people shouldn't be able to say so, and support efforts to enact civil unions.

But let me be clear: Civil unions are not a substitute for marriage. They are not equal. As a stepping stone to marriage, yes, they are an improvement. But civil unions are not the ultimate goal. Equality is the goal, and we expect everyone here to support that goal. Equality means marriage for gays and straights.

3. If you are opposed to gay rights, you are a homophobe. Don't share that particular point of view here or else you're going to get banned. You've been warned.

4. If your explanation for why we lost is based entirely (or almost entirely) on gay rights, then you are scapegoating and you're probably a homophobe. You might get banned.

5. If you are arguing that the party needs to abandon support for gay rights entirely, then you might not be an outright homophobe, but in my opinion you are not sufficiently supportive of equal rights.

6. It is not homophobic to point out the obvious truth that there are large numbers of people in large regions of the country who are opposed to gay rights. ON EDIT: It also not homophobic to point out that political candidates, particularly those running in conservative areas, may have to compromise on the issue of gay rights for the purposes of political expediency.

7. I believe that we need to focus on the question of how our party can be competitive nationally without abandoning this core principle. I believe that gay rights is not a make-or-break issue for a majority of voters in any state. The opinions of hard-core homophobes notwithstanding, my impression is that most Americans are supportive of the idea that people should be able to live their lives how they like. How do we convince potential voters that they need not be afraid? How do we convince potential voters that they should care more about their job and their health care and their children than about who some stranger falls in love with? These are the questions we need to be asking.

We are right on this issue, I have no doubt. In 40 years, we are going to look back at opposition to gay marriage as something as bigoted and anachronistic as opposition to interracial marriage.

[Starry Messenger]

124. I understood what you were saying ProSense!

But I think Skinner's position is that we can hold several opinions about the issue personally (in our minds). We just can't advocate on DU against gay marriage. At least that's what this follow up to the OP I posted would suggest:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1324374&mesg_id=1328902

and the subsequent result that posts do get deleted if they advocate for less than equal rights with straight marriage. Is that a little clearer? I'm a little tired, and never know if I'm getting all my thoughts out the best way.

edit: more specific

edit: I am pro-gay marriage, just in case anyone wonders

[ProSense]

127. Exactly,

advocating against something is different from acknowledging the reality in some parts of the country and the current position of most elected Democrats. As I said, gay marriage is an issue among many issues that Democrats and the country are grappling with.

[Starry Messenger]

129. Right.

I think we are on the same wavelength.

[JohnnieGordon]

131. Civil Unions as stepping stone, fine, opposition to gay marriage as final goal - deletable

You said people should be able to share Obama's view about gay marriage here. He doesn't advocate civil unions as a stepping stone to marriage, he says he's opposed to marriage, and will even reference his Christianity when stating his opposition to it. So people can't share Obama's position on gay marriage without violating the rules.

[JohnnieGordon]

125. I know why it was deleted, there was nothing else inflammatory about the post

You are misrepresenting what these comment by Skinner mean."

He wasn't advocating for civil unions as a stepping stone, he was flatly opposed to gay marriage.

The discussion is at the bottom of the thread, and anyone who wants to take the time to read how it played out, will see that the alerted post was by someone who wasn't being in any way inflammatory other than stating his opposition to gay marriage. I know you'll deny it, I just wanted to make sure anyone else reading this didn't get the false impression that opposition to gay marriage isn't an actionable violation of the rules here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8004820

[Starry Messenger]

126. I don't think she'll deny it.

ProSense has always struck me as someone who likes to have all her ducks lined up. She's a great poster.

[RobinA]

171. Wait!!!

I realize I'm quite late to this argument, but you can get banned for being against gay civil rights? Do you get banned for being pro-life, i.e. against female civil rights? Man, I thought this was a liberal forum.

As for Warren, get him outta there. Prayers of any kind have no place at an inauguration. Read the Establishment Clause.

[Starry Messenger]

120. Yes, I agree with you.

I alert on those, too and get them deleted. I think ProSense was just looking for clarification.

[JohnnieGordon]

87. Skinner assumes you have to be pro gay-marriage, actually

You can argue for civil unions as a stepping stone, but the final goal has to be full equality, marriage. This is direct from Skinner:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4689492&mesg_id=4690268

[ProSense]

94. Skinner posted a comment, but what does that

have to do with what I stated? The fact is that is not Obama's position and many DUers aren't bothered by that.

[JohnnieGordon]

101. It's not merely a "comment" it was the setting of a rule

People here who say they oppose gay marriage can get their posts deleted or be tombstoned, it happens all the time.

The fact is that is not Obama's position and many DUers aren't bothered by that."

If you are bothered by that, tough titty, you know where the door is. Skinner makes the rules here, and that rule is INTENDED to bother people who don't support full equality for gays, which includes marriage.

"What does that have to do with what I stated?"

You haven't said you oppose gay marriage, so I'm not saying you have violated that rule. But you're bothered that other DU'ers don't feel this is a welcoming place to express the anti-gay marriage view they share with Obama. Well it isn't hon, take it up with Skinner if you don't like it, or leave.

[ProSense]

109. No, I think you need to read

this instead of telling anyone to "leave."

[JohnnieGordon]

111. I alerted on someone who said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" this morning

Included skinner's quote and a link it to it. The post was deleted. It's definitely a rule here.

[mondo joe]

145. You don't seem to get the full set of rules.

Diverse community doesn't mean ANYTHING is permitted.

[Solon]

160. If I were to say that Civil Unions were a step in the right direction towards Same Sex Marriage...

that's a perfectly valid opinion to have on DU.

If I were to say, that for political expediency purposes, my focus was on that first, and Same Sex Marriage second, that is also permitted.

If I were to say I don't support Same Sex Marriage because of a matter of personal believe/opinion. Well then I risk getting banned from the board.

Note to all, none of these reflect my personal opinion, all are examples only.

[RobinA]

172. There's Rules Here

for how to think? Yikes. Sig Heil!

[mondo joe]

180. There arent rules for how to think. There are rules for the use of the board.

No one has to use DU.

[RobinA]

173. What If I Support

gay marriage AND free thought? Oh, OK, go somewhere else.

[JohnnieGordon]

177. DU supports a haven for gays to not have people tell them they don't deserve full equality

And if you have a problem with that, you can either take that up with Skinner, or leave.

[IndianaJones]

54. kinda like someone posting pro-Kerry and anti-Clinton crap in all kinds of threads. nt.

[ProSense]

59. Thanks for making the point of

irrelevant and nonsensical comments. If I post a comment in any thread, it will have relevancy to the OP.

[Midlodemocrat]

76. There aren't 100,000 active posters. And, your post is disgusting.

Every DUer, by virtue of being a true DUer and not a troll should be an equal rights activist. Anything less is disingenuous and petty.

If DU doesn't advocate for our GLBT friends, who the fuck will? Freepers? Puleez.

[ProSense]

81. BS. That is not what my post said.

Twisting what I said is disningenuous as hell. You fully well understood the point, but just want your own way, that is to portray everyone as being against you.

[mondo joe]

85. But what you now seem to be saying is you can support equal rights while being

opposed to equal rights.

[ProSense]

88. No, that is not what I'm saying. Period. n/t

[mondo joe]

92. Then what is it when you think a minority should have the same right as everyone else?

[Midlodemocrat]

97. That's exactly what your post said. And, I'm straight.

I just happen to believe that the GLBT community is fully in the right on this one, unlike you.

[ProSense]

99. No, that's your interpretation. n/t

[Midlodemocrat]

106. Actually, no. It's not my interpretation. I am straight. But thanks for playing.

[ProSense]

112. What does being "straight" have to do with it being your interpretation? n/t

[Divine Discontent]

159. hear hear! eom

[QC]

47. Most of those masks weren't so firmly attached to start with. n/t

[mondo joe]

73. Many were less well disguised than Superman as Clark Kent.

[QC]

80. Yeah, about like the tatty costume on the drunk Santa

down at the K-Mart.

[thewiseguy]

53. I agree with you.

Shameful to say many of them were vocal during the primaries and I never objected to them since they were on my side.

[ruggerson]

110. there are a lot of folks that apparently share your sentiment

and I think you're pretty damn honorable.

[jonnyblitz]

68. No Kidding!! holy CRAP.

:crazy:

[pnorman]

86. "being thrown under the bus" is the catch-phrase commonly invoked in this sort of discussion.

That must be a truly LARGE bus, capable of chewing up victims numbering in the BILLIONS! And the VAST majority of them, are facing FAR direr fates than what's whipping many here into a frenzy. The thought that this DU, the anchor of my "political" life these past 8 years, may be foundering on that bourgeois and hypocritical institution known as "marriage", is MADDENING!

But I still have HOPE that most of this will be gone by January 21 of next year. And I suggest to these "single-issue leftists", to turn their thoughts to Free Love rather than "marriage"! Read some Emma Goldman, starting with this: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20715

pnorman

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[Unvanguard]

96. It's not about "marriage", it's about equality.

And it's about a preacher who not only is against marriage equality but who also thinks homosexuality is like pedophilia.

Your faux-radicalism does you no credit.

[pnorman]

108. Emma Goldman on Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman

I seem to have "drawn blood" (or other bodily fluids), with that reference to Emma Goldman's book, "Marriage and love". TOUGH SHIT, but my comments on "being thrown under the bus" still stand. Respond to them or ignore them, it matters little to me. I've had a lifetime of dealing with "bolsheviks", left, right, and center. Some were good friends, and I gave them all the support I could muster. But ALL had that fatal intellectual flaw that distinguishes a libertarian from an authoritarian.

pnorman

[mondo joe]

147. Emma Goldman is dead. Real living people are being denied equal civil rights.

So bite me.

[pnorman]

156. a black person TRAPPED in institutional racism,

or an impoverished child TRAPPED in institutionalized poverty (as humble examples), has virtually NO alternative option corresponding to practicing "free love in the GLBT community". His or her ONLY "release" would be self-pity (and in relative silence for safety's sake!). Do you REALLY have difficulty grasping that fundamental distinction between differing social injustices?

"Bite me"? is that some sort of kinky Larry Craig-type come-on? If so, I guess it's better to be the bitee than the biter. So have fun!

pnorman

[mondo joe]

162. And how about a gay teen driven to suicide (as gay teens are 4 times more than hetero

teens)?

How about gay teens driven to homelessness, among the most vulnerable people in our country?

Try to think a little, asswipe.

[pnorman]

176. "asswipe"??? You can continue this dialog with yourself. Have fun!

EOM

pnorman

[mondo joe]

178. Adios, and thanks for your load of FAIL.

[pnorman]

181. I pity the "cause" that has the likes of you as it's champion.

n/t

pnorman

[depakid]

102. Another most illuminating thing

is the process by which many posters on these threads systematically alienate their supporters.

-that alongside another equally counterproductive process called reaction formation.

[mondo joe]

103. I'm sure we'd do better to grovel more, and be thankful for any crumbs.

Thank you.

[depakid]

114. Case in point

No one mentioned grovelling- and reasonable people should expect more than a bit of venting on a message board.

On the other hand, some of the attacks and hyperbole are divisive- and chase people away from both the discussions- as well as from the cause, as effectively as if by design.

Some in the environmental community have a problem with this process, too.

[JoFerret]

121. I never expected that much

Homophobia runs deep and "progressives" are not immune.
I knew Obama was never going to be out front on gay issues. That is not his thing and I never thought he actually understood the depth of the issues. But he is not a bigot and I figured I could live with that. He has been putting together an interesting team. There is hope.I was excited sabout the inauguration.

And then Rick Warren. WTF? Are gays disposable? Again?

[ShortnFiery]

130. No, absolutely not, just like a person's gender isn't SELECTED by free will, neither is being GAY.

On a much smaller scale, let me convey my deep disappointment in the "lack of support for women golfers" conveyed by Tiger Woods a few years back. Women's groups were avidly protesting the fact that an "excellent golf course" (I forget the name but played by the PGA) was still a club only open to MEN. One of these groups turned to Tiger Woods to ask for his support on the basis, as a man of color, he would KNOW discrimination, and thus, would support the women golfers in the LPGA wanting to play this course and become members of the club.

To make a long story short, Tiger Woods did nothing ... sort of figuratively putted with comments to the effect "It's not my dance."

I was so disappointed as a woman and someone who enjoys golf. However, I thought about it ... HUMAN NATURE, that is. It takes a great deal of moral courage to take a principled stance. Tiger Woods is still IMO, a thoughtful human being although he did not demonstrate the courage that I (and many women) wished of him.

My Point: People are multidimensional, not JUST "good vs. evil" persona etched in stone ... plus - individuals CAN change and become more compassionate over time. Just perhaps, deep down, Rick Warren may be touched personally by our humbleness? After all, it is a slap in the face but Jesus taught those of us who are Christians to "turn the other cheek."

Obama MAY truly believe that through interacting with "rigid personalities" some evangelicals will learn that we all much cherish each other's civil rights even if it doesn't directly affect our person.

Hope springs eternal. :-)

[cali]

132. ugh. the stink of smug sanctimony at night.

there really aren't that many.

Most people here are solidly for your rights. Do you focus at all on that? Fuck no, of course not.

Perhaps you want to believe in how "evil" m;ost straight people are. I don't know.

[Quixote1818]

149. Thanks You. My poll (which was locked) proves you right.

And yet the moderators let this ilk and divisive thread stay up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8021642&mesg_id=8021642

[SwampG8r]

135. you didnt see anyone who

was not what you suspected them to be?i would think you would discover that you had unknown allies as well as unknown hinderances

[ruggerson]

136. Yes you're absolutely right

I've been more than surpised (positively) by a number of different people. I wrote the OP when there were about ten flamewars on the front page, three screaming "LIAR" in the headline, hence the negative bias.

But you're right. There have been almost as many uncovered allies as otherwise and that deserves a post of its own.



:toast:

[SwampG8r]

140. well if it deserves it

own post .......

i am watching the courts myself
i think when the prop 8 starts running through the courts its going to be easy to slap down as it is a proposition voted on by a majority to limit previously accepted rights of california citizens and directed towards one minority
the courts will be forced to rule that this proposiion in its conception is unconstitutional
it is analogous to california rolling back the laws against interracial marriage
it cannot be legal

[PBS Poll-435]

138. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

x(

[AlCzervik]

139. It's sad, there were a few that surprised me in a bad way.

[yardwork]

153. I haven't been surprised by any of those revealed so far, but I have been surprised

at how many of them are still here posting homophobic crap day in and day out.

If they were posting racist or antisemitic crap they'd have been shown the door years ago, for good reason.

[flvegan]

163. This thread went well.

[Robb]

164. My thoughts exactly.

[peace13]

169. Actually I am sure it went the way it was planned.

So many scabs to pick so little time. Peace, Kim

[woo me with science]

195. ...

[Danger Mouse]

197. Light fuse and run away.

[zulchzulu]

165. So are you thinking some people here on DU are homophobes?

Somehow they unwittingly exposed their hate for gays?

Is this something akin to how McCarthy used a strategy where if you dared to say his anti-communist searches were wrong, you could be declared a communist?

[mondo joe]

166. Well, SOME people certainly are.

A number have been booted over the last weekend for revealing such.

[RobinA]

175. Looks Like!

Sadly, a self-defeating way of doing things.

[Phx_Dem]

168. SInce your cryptic post is open to interpretation, I assume you're

talking about those of us who think many (but not all) in the gay community have gone over the edge with their hateful diatribe onm this issue. If that's, the case, I guess you're including Melissa Etheridge and her partner Tammy, who wrote the following blog about Warren. For many on this board, her post is probably considered blasphemy. If I've misread your cryptic post, please correct me.

http://hollywoodfarmgirl.blogspot.com/

"So honey met rick warren last night. well, she spoke to him on the phone beforehand, giving us insight into the man the media has made our latest "HE HATES YOU!" target. if i sit real still and think about it.. it's almost like reverse smear-the-queer. remember that recess game in second grade (natalie? derek? karyn?), when one kid had the ball, and all the other kids had to chase and kick the shit out of said person, hence "smearing" him? well, at times, it seems that the media presents us with target after target to smear, as if to say to us, "THIS IS THE GUY HOLDING YOU BACK!! GO GIT 'IM!!!" and it does seem that my lovely gay family is so bruised and bettered and ready to fight back (myself included), that we attack and deem someone ANTI-GAY, and ready to SMEAR, simply when they don't want the word "marriage" brought into our gay ceremonies. now, if the person doesn't want gays AT ALL, then i'm gonna chase that one down. but, i'm starting to think that there are indeed some people... some well-meaning and loving people... who are not at all ANTI-GAY, that's not why they don't want the word marriage used... they are merely RELIGIOUS. and for religious (archaic) reasons, they want to stay safe and respectful to WHAT THEY'VE BEEN TAUGHT.

let me try to differentiate the two.

<SNIP>

rick is not a televangelist. rick is not falwell. rick spoke of some "stupid" things he's said (his word, not mine), some missquotes that were given, and lots of ammunition from the media. all excellent points. (we're all war-minded right now, you know. it's easy for the media to distract us by throwing us into our own verbal wars here at home.) ) what to do, what to do.... the rest of the public is given an animation of rick warren... and then my wife meets the man behind the projections, the quotes, the "OTHER SIDE". and he is warm, caring, effusive, and LOVES gays. since he nearly swallowed honey when he hugged her, i tend to believe him. he wants our gay marriages to be just as respected and embraced as the straight marriages. he just wants to wear his yamaka, and me wear my hat.

anway. hath hell frozenth over? rick warren was humble and kind. honey and i are to go to his church sometime soon. and honey invited him to our house for an afternoon, to be with our family. (w.t.f.)

open minds hearts hands
differences fade."

[jesus_of_suburbia]

183. I haven't been shocked yet by anyone. All the people I thought were freaks.......

have either told us GLBT'ers to shut up, or been silent.


All the people I thought were hateful have at most given tepid support.

[slackmaster]

185. Yeah, I know exactly what you mean

:hide:

[Neshanic]

186. It is amazing. But now we know.

[Skittles]

187. I HEAR YOU RUGGERSON

AND AGREE WITH YOU 100%

[wndycty]

188. And what mask am I wearing

:kick:

[Fearless]

194. I'd tell you but we're all supposed to fall back in line now.

[Danger Mouse]

196. Hm. I wouldn't say that.

I think the number of genuine homophobes that have 'shown their true colors' here is not many. I think it's mostly people who would defend anything Obama does, up to and including eating a baby. The twisted logic they need to use to defend makes them defensive, and in turn, hostile.