Those annoying little truths

[NJmaverick]

1) Warren's priorities are not opposing gay marriage (or abortion, the forgotten view), rather it's poverty, Aids and global warming. In other words he was not a leader or the strongest advocate for prop 8.

2) Allowing Warren to say a prayer does not take away a single person's civil right, nor does it change Obama's positions or the Government's positions or policies on gay rights.

3) Reaching out and trying to find common ground means you are going to be reaching out for people you DON'T agree with. It's not reaching out if you only surround yourself with people who agree with you.

4) DU is not and never has been anything but supportive of the GBLT community

5) DU has not collectively (there may be isolated incidents out of frustration) told the GBLT community to "STFU". They have spoken out when people have posted views and positions they don't agree with.

6) When Obama enters the White House he will become the strongest advocate for gay rights, the White House has ever seen.

7) We won the election. Giving Warren a chance to say a prayer is a noble gesture, not defeat.

8) The real enemy is the ignorance and intolerance that allowed prop 8 and other equally abhorrent laws to pass. Attacking the ignorant has never proven to be an effective path to enlightenment, it only causes them to close their minds and dig in their heals.

9) The vast majority of knowledgeable people believe that a nation functions best when united, rather than divided.

10) Tolerance is considered a virtue. It's a virtue for everyone including liberals, conservatives, religious and non-religious.

11) It's better to give respect, when asking for respect. In other words not respecting a person's religious views, is a bad start when telling them that they in turn should respect you and your civil rights and life style. Respect begets respect.

12) Comparing a person's religious beliefs with organized racists, is as offensive and wrong as comparing gay marriage to incest or polygamy.

13) The world is not black and white, rather it's many shades of gray. The "either you are with me or against me" mentality is simply misguided and wrong. People are more complex than a single issue or position.

[lamp_shade]

1. Kick and recommend as Required Reading.

... and bookmarked.

[sojourner]

2. Haven't gotten into the Warren fray, but I wholeheartedly agree with OP

[countingbluecars]

3. Lots of good points. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

4. K,R, and most members damn well know these things but a few disrupt anyway.

That's what is so disturbing about the drama.

[scheming daemons]

9. They will be along shortly to shit on this thread

[lamp_shade]

22. Yup.... that didn't take long.

:banghead:

[NJmaverick]

119. These same people use mulitple posts to suppliment their extremely limited numbers

from what I can see

[lamp_shade]

127. That's pretty clear to me too. Here... take a little break

:popcorn:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

407. Oh, that annoys you? Well, then, let me use a different style. ONE post only.

Defending/whitewashing Rick Warren = INSTANT ADDITION TO SHIT LIST. And you're in it.

Apropos of nothing, I'm using the buddy list for managing purposes. Not ignore -- you can't alert ignored posts.

See? Only one post necessary to speak my mind. Better, eh?

[EFerrari]

425. Wrong. Disgust for Warren and for his apologists is not limited to a few here at all.

And that you believe the number is limited disproves your claim about multiple posts, doesn't it?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

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

[phleshdef]

6. Agreed on every single point. Rec'd.

[Joe the Revelator]

7. Whoa. Really good post.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

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

[yowzayowzayowza]

10. Wholeheartedly agree.

:thumbsup:

[Quixote1818]

11. Well put. nt

[wyldwolf]

12. the Warren selection still doesn't feel right, but your post is a beauty. K&R

[Phx_Dem]

13. Very thoughtful post. n/t

[firedupdem]

14. Rec'd. Very intelligent post. n/t

[ThomCat]

15. Bullshit!

Warren has spoken out repeatedly for Prop 8 and helped push it. His global activities are anti-gay as well.

DU is a very, very straight forum, and often many LGBT people often feel hostility from a majority of straight people who, honestly, vastly overestimate their empathy and support. DU has ALWAYS been a hostile place. If you think it isn't then you haven't been listing to the LGBT population here.

Supporting Warren in any way does allow him to have more influence to take away our civil rights, but if your rights are not threatened we can't expect you to be sensitive to the threat.

Whether or not Obama will be an advocate for LGBT people remains to be seen. Right now you're preaching faith, not fact. We're fighting for our lives against facts, and actions that are really taking place. Forgive us if we don't sit quietly have a lot of faith to spare.

Yes, nations function best when united, but the majority has never, ever given rights to a minority unless the minority got angry, vocal and organized and demanded those rights. Straight people aren't going to bother to give us our rights because you like us. You just won't bother to get around to it. We've seen that over and over again every time you abandon our issues because it's convenient. So if you want unity, stand with us this time.

If someone keeps their religion to themselves then we'll respect it, but as soon as they push their religion into public policy it's a matter of public debate. We don't have to respect views that in public policy that condemn us to second class status.

For all these reasons and many more, I call Bullshit on the OP.

[PeaceNikki]

16. I'm with ya, Thom.

For all the reasons you stated and then some.

[cali]

25. yes and no.

yes, on what you said about Rick Warren. Completely agree. As for DU being a very, very straight forum, well, I think there's a larger representation of GLBT folks here than on most liberal sites. And I disagree that DU as a whole is hostile to the GLBT community.

In the real world straight people have worked side by side with the GLBT community for years. And here on DU, it's a minority of straight people posting insensitive crap.

[ThomCat]

35. I don't know how small that minority really is.

But it's a large majority supporting it. It's a small minority of straight people here who really "get it" and stand by us in any kind of intelligent way.

A lot of other people pay us lip service and think that because they don't openly bash us they're somehow our allies. But we've seen as recently as yesterday that some people here who claim to be our allies will become very blatantly homophobic the moment they don't like us for some person reason.

I think your assumption about majority support here is an unfounded assumption.

[S n o w b a l l]

446. And I think you owe an apology to all your straight supporters

Thom!

Very inconsiderate of you after what this community has done for you. Straight people don't get it and are unempathetic? Ok...you wouldn't be typing here if that were true.

[PeaceNikki]

450. Apologize for what? I am a "straight supporter" of Thoms and my other LGBT friends.

Are you're saying that because he accepted help from people here that he should accept not having civil rights? He should accept the name-calling and dismissing of his concerns?

I am not following.

[S n o w b a l l]

453. Of course not...

But are you speaking for Thom now? Saying that the majority of straight DUer's were unempathatic & unsupportive. I think there are some who would be offended at that. You think those have supported Thom aren't for his civil rights?

[PeaceNikki]

454. I think he has a right to his opinion

and that it's based on a lot of very hateful shit that has been posted here about our LGBT brothers and sisters. All of which is offensive to anyone with any sense. Those are the people to whom he refers. And yes, it has been a large number. And I have seen people who have literally gone from SCREAMING that they support full equality in one post to calling a DUer a "disease" only minutes later. He's pointing out the hypocrisy of "support" he's seen.

[Name removed]

455. Deleted message

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

[PeaceNikki]

456. Awww...do you need a hug?

:hug:

I'm MARRIED now!?! FUCK, I missed the party and EVERYthing. x(

[S n o w b a l l]

458. Yes, that would be nice, thanks...

:hug: Sorry about the mistake about your marital status. But, see I'm a perfect example of my beef here...no one knows anyone, including me. :) I'm not above mistakes and don't mind admitting it.

[PeaceNikki]

461. And see... that's where we agree.

Thom's outrage and assessment was based on what HE's seen and what HE's been subjected to. Some of us have seen the awful, horrible, nasty things that have been said here. I think the worst are deleted. This is good and bad. It's good because it's hurtful. It's bad because those of us who saw it have no "proof" that it happened and are accused of "lying" about it.

I know and you know that we are all a sum of our experiences. I also know from my very deep discussions with my LGBT friends here that the issues with Warren stopped being about Warren several days ago. It turned into a huge contingency of folks who were told that they had no RIGHT to feel hurt or betrayed over the pick. That their issues are not important and they they should STFU and wait.

Their outrage over Warren was more hurtful because it was made by the most progressive president (elect) in history. And they feel that it's long overdue that their feelings are considered. It then spawned into a VERY divisive "war" of sorts when their friends, allies and supporters right here on DU had the nerve to tell them that their feelings weren't justified, call them names, pit others against them and lash out horribly.

This OP, for example, is opinion stated as "truth". It's very nanny-like in it's shaking of the finger at them telling them they're wrong for feeling hurt.

Anyway... off my soap box. I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said before.

In the immortal words of Rodney King - CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG!?!

:)

[KitchenWitch]

459. These posts of yours, Engi are outright personal attacks

You need to cease and desist with this. You have made your feelings known, and shown your true colors.

Stay classy.

[S n o w b a l l]

466. As in this whole issue Kitchwitch...

many here have been "classy". I apologize if I'm following in the course.

[KitchenWitch]

469. But you are in control of your own behavior.

[S n o w b a l l]

471. Yes, I am..

And I stand by what I said before it was deleted. I was just being snarky back to your snarky reply.

Please don't let straight people here support you and then denigrate them or I will call you out.

[GinaMaria]

472. Hey Thom

I do my best, but I can't completely know your experience. If I can do better or if there is something I don't seem to be getting, please take the time to explain it to me. I do listen. I may not always 'see' your perspective but when you share feelings and the impact of events on you, I can take in the experience from your perspective a little better.

I hope I've never said anything that hurt you. If I did, I am sorry. The wound that Prop8 ripped open has been excrutiating. Also keep in mind there has been an 'infestation' of jackasses. Check profiles of posters. You may find a commonality there as I have.

PS
Do you have a Thom Cat? I had one. That strut was something else. Still smile when I think of it.

[Hansel]

505. I agree.

I'm straight and believe that the lack of empathy and real understanding from so many so-called liberals and progressives is really stunning.

I am amazed at the number of people on this site who just can't accept that most gays and lesbians (if not all) are offended by Warren's degrading stands against them. They seem to lack any capacity to put themselves in anyone else's shoes. Why there are any comments defending him and this choice is beyond me.

If you have chosen a religion that teaches you that it is okay to discriminate against fellow citizens, then it is not a religion worth defending and I fail to feel any empathy for anyone who is offended when people call them on it. You cannot hide behind something that you have chosen to believe in and then say "you can't offend my religion" like it is separate from you. Take some responsibility.

But it is the obsession that they have with discounting the anger and pain that people have about this choice and the attack-the-victim mentality that are most baffling to me. What the hell do they care? What are they trying to prove? It's hard not to think that they just aren't as enlightened and accepting as they think they are. What is all of this defensiveness about? It seems to come off as as guilt in some cases and blind hero worship for Obama in others. It's not pretty in either case.

The unfortunate part is that they really believe that they are the adults.

[iconicgnom]

365. "sensitive" or not, right vs wrong is a matter of pure reason,

if a person believes in equal rights for all.

Let's grant that "if". To my mind, I can't think of any way how a person who believes in equal rights for all, would imagine that these rights don't apply to some or other group of people, when based solely on their "sexual orientation".

But if we won't grant that "if", then we get people like Rick Warren. Rick Warren has made it his business to be the face of those who don't grant that "if".

Myself, I believe that equal rights are for all.

[NJmaverick]

52. DU "hostile" to the LBGT comunity?

What is the ONE liberal position that every member is required to have by rule? Once you answer that, can you then explain what exactly supports your statement?

[ThomCat]

57. Have you been here this week?

For that matter, have you read your posts?

:eyes:

[NJmaverick]

60. You didn't answer my question

why?

[ooglymoogly]

320. amen nt

[Skittles]

346. you know it Thom

damn I am sick of these fucking DU apologists - absolutely SICK of them :puke:

[anachro1]

366. BINGO!

Well said.

[silverojo]

378. And I call bullshit on YOUR post

DU is not a "very, very straight" forum...quite frankly, if I were a mod or an admin, I'd slap you with a warning for saying something so untrue and downright slanderous.

Skinner has declared that people aren't welcome here unless they believe in same-sex marriage. I was told I could no longer make Ann Coulter jokes, because they might be offensive to the GLBT community.

Rules like this exist to make all of us GLBT people feel at home here. What the hell more do you want from this forum? To get all the straight people banned?!? The only "hostility" is that which you're projecting on others, not the other way around. The only people that get unfairly attacked around here are those with mental illness, and the people who are callously ignored are those in poverty.

If you think lashing out at straight people is going to win them over, you're seriously delusional. Just as black people needed whites to help them gain equality, GLBT people need straights to help us.


I proudly kick and recommend this excellent original post.

[noamnety]

422. The coulter jokes are a great example.

You were told not to make them. That's great, and as it should be.

However, the fact that nearly EVERY coulter thread at some point devolves (or begins) with slams that are disrespectful to the GLBT community is a symptom in and of itself. As a community there is a constant background noise of anti-glbt sentiment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x969166
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4535161
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7787227&mesg_id=7787332
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2527546
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2448741
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4267481
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1393154
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1636212
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4636966

I could keep going - there are over a thousand hits on DU for Mann Coulter. And that's after the mods have deleted a large number of them. What does that tell you about the frequency of comments on DU that are homophobic/transphobic?

and that's only that one very specific topic. It's not even taking into account how the gays have "lost us the elections," how the gays have "persecuted" the straight people in a thousand ways, how demanding equal rights amounts to religious bigotry (it's their religion to discriminate, why can't you respect that?!!), how every republican is a closet gay, on and on.

[wolfgangmo]

468. Ok, I'm pretty new here but...

... I don't get the problem with the Mann Coulter jokes.

I didn't get it the first time I heard one so I asked to have it explained and by George she does look kind of like a dude. It's not funny IMHO, but it is descriptive.

Am I, missing something? I'm really trying to understand. Help.

[noamnety]

470. Message in the posts:

the way we attack women we hate is to imply they are transgendered (less than a "real" woman -- and of course, less than a "real" man.)

It's great, because it's misogynistic ("good" women meet corporate beauty standards - DU enforces that strictly, by the way, you'll see the fashion/beauty police are all over republican women/spouses)

and it's transphobic - hahahaha nothing funnier than mocking people for not fitting strict gender roles and expectations.

It's sort of like republicans always referring to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama. Now there's nothing wrong with Hussein as a middle name in and of itself. But we all get the coded message when they use it in that way. It's not a neutral statement anymore than calling Coulter "Mann" Coulter is a neutral statement about the transgendered community.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

399. thank you.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

400. thank you.

[Name removed]

412. Deleted message

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

[Bryan Sacks]

414. Right on, Thom. Bullshit it is n/t

[Mad_Dem_X]

424. Totally agree.

I'm a straight person, and I am appalled at the choice of Warren. And I am complete agreement with you on your post.

[TZ]

433. He's already given important jobs to openly gay people

Who else has done that? Reagan? Bush? Ford? Nixon? Uh no.
He may not be the most gay friendly person out there. But he's no bigot.
I also hear he is considering an openly gay person for Sec of the Navy. Thats a BIG deal.
Whats missing here is that Obama is probably going to be the most progressive on gay issues any president has been. Unless you really think Clintons don't ask don't tell is great..and I don't.
Unfortunately there are more fundies in this country than gays. Which means sadly--that they get pandered to..BY EVERY FREAKING CANDIDATE. Or did you miss the faith forums ALL the dems attended. Do you think that was anything OTHER than pandering to the fundies?
And yes, including Warren in his inaugural (and NOT as policy maker) is very consistent with his views.

[Name removed]

438. Deleted message

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

[dbackjon]

440. More truth in your post, ThomCat

[spag68]

483. Warren

church-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------state

Nuff said

[Blarch]

17. Fuck you!!!!!!!

oh wait, good points. Especially #6

I wish the gay community could see as much. K&R

[PeaceNikki]

18. I'm not one of "the gays" and I disagree with the OP.

[donheld]

216. I am one of "the gays" and i heartily agree with the OP.

We gay's have NOT been thrown under any bus and it's time to stop acting like we have been.
Giving Warren the chance to offer a stupid pray in NO WAY affects policy.

[Name removed]

309. Deleted message

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

[donheld]

371. Then why all the drama?

[silverojo]

379. If you're paranoid enough to consider everything an insult...

Then there's no hope for YOU. :eyes:

[Yes We Did]

406. Since nobody said "the gays" I don't know where you are coming from.

But I am tired of people being quoted for stuff they did not say or imply.

[ThomCat]

20. Yeah, the gay community is such a bunch of blind troublemakers!

:eyes:

If only we were as intelligent as all you straight people. We really need you to tell us how to feel about the constant attacks on our rights and our humanity. We really need you to tell us how to fight for equality. If only we were as smart and wise as straight people.
x(

[Joe the Revelator]

24. Nobody is saying that you aren't

What I read people saying is that there is open discussion between some people (read the above thread between nicki and nomad as proof), its just anger. If we're going to make any headway it has to be done as adults, talking it out openly, but civilly. The its 'US v THEM" on DU bs needs to stop for a bit.

[ThomCat]

26. You're a big promoter of that Us vs Them bs here.

You're one of the big antagonists, and throwing more bullshit than most.

[Joe the Revelator]

28. And I was wrong

Does that fact that I do it make it better for everyone else to do it? Hell no.

I realized a little while ago that this conversation as a whole isn't going to amount to anything unless the "us v them" bullshit stops, and we start being civil enough to try to find a way to fix the problem together.

[NJmaverick]

29. Wasn't your post, he was responding to ,also promoting Us vs Them?

[ThomCat]

38. I'm not promoting it, I'm stating a fact. It's a very hostile, straight forum.

We don't pick fights. We go out there trying to make it hostile for straight people. It works the other way. But once this place becomes hostile to us, damned right we're going to post about it.

But be clear about this, the polarizing has already happened by the time we post about it.

[Joe the Revelator]

42. I mean, if your postion here is that no member of the LGBT community ever escalated discussion

then we can't continue to talk. I freely admit that a lot of straight people have been stupid about this issue, and have been unnecessarily hostel towards GLBT folks. I was an offender of that. But I also saw a lot of GLBT people doing the same thing directed at straight people. Thats why it can't continue to be "US v THEM" because all of us are guilty, if nothing else by proxy.

[NJmaverick]

55. Promoting is promoting. Suggesting your opinion is "fact" doesn't change that

[ThomCat]

59. Says the man who wrote a long OP stating "facts"

:eyes:

Have you ever been right, or are you always just obnoxious?

[NJmaverick]

61. Actually I posted truths

like in we hold these truths to be self evident

[ThomCat]

64. No, you posted homophobic opinions and call them truths.

[NJmaverick]

75. In your misguided opinion

then again, one might read your posts and come away with the impression that you have a clear and powerful bigotry/hatred of straight people. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume you just letting anger get the better of you.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

113. Thom has many straight friends, including me.

What he (and I) hate is when some people refuse to understand how Rick Warren is a dangerous bigot who does not need yet another platform for his views, explicit or not.

[NJmaverick]

143. So what you hate is people that don't agree with your views

That perhaps, is the root of the Warren issue.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

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

[NJmaverick]

152. That is a direct contradiction from what you just said

Here you wrote:

<<Thom has many straight friends, including me.
What he (and I) hate is when some people refuse to understand how Rick Warren is a dangerous bigot who does not need yet another platform for his views, explicit or not. >>


"Rich Warren is a dangerous bigot who does not need yet another platform"

By any known measure that would be an opinion.

Now you admit you hate people who don't "understand" that opinion. I am not ignoring the "refuse" comment, as you have no way of determining who is refusing. However I doubt DUers are so stupid that they don't understand that rather simple opinion. Plus, why hate someone for being stupid or ignorant? So that means you are using the term "understand" in place of agrees with.

So we are back to the fact that I was correct, you (and as Thomm's spokesperson) hate people that don't agree with your opinion.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

156. Jesus F...

"Rich Warren is a dangerous bigot who does not need yet another platform"

By any known measure that would be an opinion.

Several people have posted PROOF that Warren actively campaigned for Prop 8 AND compared gay marriage to pedophilia and incest -- it's on TAPE, for fuck's sake. How is that NOT bigotry?

Oh, and it's "Rick." :eyes:

Now you admit you hate people who don't "understand" that opinion. I am not ignoring the "refuse" comment, as you have no way of determining who is refusing. However I doubt DUers are so stupid that they don't understand that rather simple opinion. Plus, why hate someone for being stupid or ignorant? So that means you are using the term "understand" in place of agrees with.

No, I said WHAT I hate is WHEN some people refuse to understand Warren's impact and horrible ideas. I know English is clearly not your first (or second) language, so try to keep up here.

And I'm not Thom's "spokesperson." I am a straight ally who understands GLBTs' feelings about this issue more than you ever will.

[NJmaverick]

164. hmmm... well I hate to tell you but an active campaign is MORE THAN

publicly stating you oppose something. An active campaign would be running adds, running a GOTV program, giving money to the cause or something to that affect. So no there has been no "proof" he has run an active campaign.

Oddly enough your dispute of my assertion once again stating you hate it when people don't agree with your opinion. That's not a very effective way to argue, in my opinion.

I also think your choice of the term "ally" is very telling (and damning). It implies that you are at war, with the people at DU. I can't imagine going to war with my fellow liberals and democrats. The very idea of that is very regpugnant. Then again I guess if people didn't think of DU as some sort of war zone, it would be more peaceful and there does seem to be people that don't like that concept.

[NJmaverick]

165. hmmm... well I hate to tell you but an active campaign is MORE THAN

publicly stating you oppose something. An active campaign would be running adds, running a GOTV program, giving money to the cause or something to that affect. So no there has been no "proof" he has run an active campaign.

Oddly enough your dispute of my assertion once again stating you hate it when people don't agree with your opinion. That's not a very effective way to argue, in my opinion.

I also think your choice of the term "ally" is very telling (and damning). It implies that you are at war, with the people at DU. I can't imagine going to war with my fellow liberals and democrats. The very idea of that is very regpugnant. Then again I guess if people didn't think of DU as some sort of war zone, it would be more peaceful and there does seem to be people that don't like that concept.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

169. Look at post #43, genius.

Warren is telling his millions of followers (ON TAPE) to vote for Prop 8. That IS a GOTV program.

Oddly enough your dispute of my assertion once again stating you hate it when people don't agree with your opinion. That's not a very effective way to argue, in my opinion.

No, numbnuts, I hate it when people ignore clearcut proof that's right in front of their eyes, particularly when it has to do with civil-rights issues.

I also think your choice of the term "ally" is very telling (and damning). It implies that you are at war, with the people at DU. I can't imagine going to war with my fellow liberals and democrats. The very idea of that is very regpugnant. Then again I guess if people didn't think of DU as some sort of war zone, it would be more peaceful and there does seem to be people that don't like that concept.

At DU, straight people ARE expected to be GLBT allies, and it goes further than simply saying you're for gay marriage. It means LISTENING to them when they have concerns about something that personally affects them.

[PeaceNikki]

160. Meanwhile, you are SO full of yourself that you call your opinions "truth".

:eyes:

[NJmaverick]

166. Does repleating the same thing over and over again

make your misguided opinions correct? Does it make your personal attacks less morally repugnant?

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

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

[lamp_shade]

170. I'm starting to worry about you Nikki. Take a deep breath.

[PeaceNikki]

173. I know you're trying to antagonize me.

I'll just give you a lil :hug: rather than engage in your lil game.

[HEyHEY]

174. WHy are you defending pricks?

[Name removed]

250. Deleted message

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

[PeaceNikki]

266. "Slander", "morally repugnant"... you are a drama queen of the HIGHEST order.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

226. Deleted message

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

[Starbucks Anarchist]

237. LOL!

:blush:

[Zuiderelle]

244. Oh, good point.

I wonder if this is like when a six-year-old who likes someone picks on them instead of being friendly to them. I think you may have struck on something there.

[NWHarkness]

352. That's not what he said

He said quite clearly that he hated a behavior, not a person or persons.

It's too bad you aren't willing to extend to the DU GLBT community the willingness to understand that you are so eager to extend to Warren.

[Zuiderelle]

205. I think I love you.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

206. So what am I so afraid of?

Sorry, it got stuck in my head. ;) :hug:

[Zuiderelle]

207. You should be afraid.

Very afraid. :hug:

[11 Bravo]

239. For failure to pick up on a Partridge Family reference ...

I sentence you mandatory attendance at the next Danny Bonaduce appearance.

[Zuiderelle]

243. Oh I picked it up. I just thought I would make another reference in return.

Please don't inflict Danny on me.

(I was referencing Geena Davis' line in "The Fly")

[11 Bravo]

256. I hereby grant you a reprieve. (For PelosiFan)

Have a Bonaduce-less holiday.

on edit: I'm an idiot. I replied to myself instead of PelosiFan.

[Zuiderelle]

260. Thank you!!

[mentalsolstice]

184. Yeppers

I'd like to know the sales of "A Purpose Driven Life", for the past 2 weeks alone...I wonder how many will find it under their Christmas trees. Ick! If I found it under my tree...well fortunately the fireplace is only five feet away. Throw it, and score a 3-pointer.

:hug: to ya handsome! Glad you got the back of all who are hurting on here lately!

[silverojo]

381. There was NOTHING homophobic about that post!

You're just trying to pick fights with people whose opinions don't correlate 100% with your own. Welcome to my ignore list.

[PeaceNikki]

73. "Comparing a person's religious beliefs with organized racists...

, is as offensive and wrong as comparing gay marriage to incest or polygamy".

Bullshit. That's not a fucking "truth".. that's an opinion. And a clueless one at that. Religion is a choice, sexual orientation is not.

Also:
1) Warren's priorities are not opposing gay marriage (or abortion, the forgotten view), rather it's poverty, Aids and global warming. In other words he was not a leader or the strongest advocate for prop 8.

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/12/rick-warren-shame-on-you-obama.html
WARREN HAS SAID THAT ONLY FIVE ISSUES ARE "NON-NEGOTIABLE" - his opposition to abortion, stem-cell research, cloning, gay rights and euthanasia - which puts him firmly in the camp of the other religious hatemongers....

I already called you out on your #5 and that didn't go real well.

7) We won the election. Giving Warren a chance to say a prayer is a noble gesture, not defeat.

Again... this is an opinion, nomad - did you pass an English class in high school?


8) The real enemy is the ignorance and intolerance that allowed prop 8 and other equally abhorrent laws to pass. Attacking the ignorant has never proven to be an effective path to enlightenment, it only causes them to close their minds and dig in their heals.

Again... opinion and grammar issues (they don't dig "heals")

11) It's better to give respect, when asking for respect. In other words not respecting a person's religious views, is a bad start when telling them that they in turn should respect you and your civil rights and life style. Respect begets respect.

Jesus, you and the fucking commas! Anyway this is also an opinion. And a shitty one. Do YOU have to ask that others "respect your civil rights". No. You are FUCKING ENTITLED TO THEM REGARDLESS OF "RESPECT", Sparky!

[ThomCat]

78. Yes!

:applause:

He will try to nit pick your post, because he clearly has a need to be right about everything even when he's clueless and offensive. But you're absolutely right.

[NJmaverick]

89. Why is it wrong to be anti-Semitic, but it's OK to be anti Evangelical/Catholic

[PeaceNikki]

91. Are you a poor oppressed Catholic, nomad?

Awww... need a hug?

:hug:

[NJmaverick]

99. You haven't answered the question

[PeaceNikki]

102. It's stupid and irrelevant.

Who the fuck is anti-Catholic/Evangelical?

On edit - you have ignored my assessment of your self-proclaimed bullshit "truths".

[NJmaverick]

117. Is that what you call reality that contradicts your opinions?

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

245. Deleted message

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

[dbmk]

142. Well..

"Jesus, you and the fucking commas! Anyway this is also an opinion. And a shitty one. Do YOU have to ask that others "respect your civil rights". No. You are FUCKING ENTITLED TO THEM REGARDLESS OF "RESPECT", Sparky!"

But ultimately it is about that respect. Respect of your rights. If they don't have that, where is the support going to come from to change things?
That was the point, I'd think.

And that is where I think the fault line is atm. A lot of people view this specific issue from a tactical perspective and a lot people view it from a purely ideological perspective. But they all look towards the common goal.
(Then there is the third group of people not in support - but they are getting TS'ed as fast as the mods get to it)

Are both sides right? I think so. It is a clear cut issue. Your sexual orientation should have no bearing on your rights. But it does and thats wrong. Anger over the issue is understandable and cannot be faulted at all.

But then there is the fixing part. Because there is no magic switch. The only question is how gradual the change must be.
Is anger the only key to making things right? Can it even be said to be detrimental if taken to certain levels? Could this apparently dark path be a shortcut? Could winning this fight mean losing the battle?

I am a 33 year old male living in a country where we have passed this point (ok, now they are debating adoption by gay couples - but even that seems to pass without any big problems).
I cannot mount the anger, that I see in many people here. Righteous anger. I probably should be able to and it honestly makes me wonder if I could be a better citizen and person. But I cannot. That does not mean I am unable to agree on what is right or what is wrong. And share your idea of where we need to go.

So I am prone to view it from the tactical perspective. And I honestly think I see Obama trying a path he thinks will work best in the long term. For gay rights as well. I cannot say if it will work. Neither can Obama. But if he thought it would hurt the LGBT cause, I honestly do not think he would have gone down that road.
On the other hand I cannot say that people are wrong, if they think he honestly does not care. I think he does, but I can't say for sure.

But can I be allowed to think and hope so, without being seen as an enemy? It seems every attempt at advocating a tactical perspective is being labelled as an attempt of gagging the LGBT community here. I have even seen Uncle Tom like comments levelled at gay people taking a more moderate approach to this subject. But some comments surely also have been condescending towards the righteous outrage.

A LOT of wellmeaning innocents are being harmed in this circular firing squad.

Lets try assuming that people mean well and agree on the goal? Even if they are not picking up a sword and leading the first charge?

[PeaceNikki]

144. Don't mistake this OP for a "wellmeaning innocent"

[lamp_shade]

159. Nikki Nikki Nikki.....

[dbmk]

175. Do you think the OP does not support equal rights for the LGBT community?

[PeaceNikki]

179. If I post my true feelings about this OP, they'll be deleted.

He hits the alert button like a fucking NINJA on my ass.

[Zuiderelle]

213. You got that right.

It's like a game of whack the nimrod.

[Yukari Yakumo]

480. If that's how you feel, it's time for you to leave. {nt}

[PeaceNikki]

481. And you are???

[HamdenRice]

192. Fantastic Post about the strategic view! I just wish some people could calm down and read it. nt

[Zuiderelle]

214. LOL!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[dbmk]

252. I take it you do not agree with the assesment of my post

And I would probably not elevate it to the level described.
But could you point me to where you think I am completely off target, as it seems to me that you are implying?

[Zuiderelle]

275. Well, truthfully, I was more laughing at the person agreeing with you...

since it's pretty typical of him...

That said, here is where you are off target:

And I honestly think I see Obama trying a path he thinks will work best in the long term. For gay rights as well. I cannot say if it will work. Neither can Obama. But if he thought it would hurt the LGBT cause, I honestly do not think he would have gone down that road.

I don't know how you can think that Obama would not go down that road if it hurts us. It hurts us and he went down the road. He could have chosen someone who wasn't quite so damn obviously anti-gay, knowing that he was already on thin-ice in that regard after McClurkin, but he didn't. He chose the most bigoted, anti-gay person he possibly could have chosen.

But can I be allowed to think and hope so, without being seen as an enemy? It seems every attempt at advocating a tactical perspective is being labelled as an attempt of gagging the LGBT community here.

Yes, you can think and hope all you like, but it doesn't mean that you can try to drum us out. This OP IS an attempt to gag the LGBT community here.

I have even seen Uncle Tom like comments levelled at gay people taking a more moderate approach to this subject. But some comments surely also have been condescending towards the righteous outrage.


My civil rights are at stake. I have no intention of being tolerant of an ignorant gay person saying that they are ok with Warren or with Obama's choice. There are gay people who also don't care about gay marriage. I have no intention of being tolerant of them either.

A LOT of wellmeaning innocents are being harmed in this circular firing squad.

THIS OP is not well-meaning and it is not innocent. It deserves all the fire it is getting. Have you read the numerous condescending replies from the OP?

Perhaps there have been a few "innocent" people who have gotten in the crossfire, but I really haven't seen any. To me, as a gay woman, this IS a black and white issue. A bigoted, homophobic, anti-woman preacher should NOT have been chosen by our President to pray at his inauguration. It legitimizes his views to the world. Anyone who thinks this is not a big deal, or thinks that it's a reasonable "tactic" doesn't get it. And they piss me off. If that's your view, then you piss me off too.

[dbmk]

280. "It hurts us and he went down the road."

You would have to prove to me that it might not help you in the long term to soften up the evangelical right, that right now seems to see any democrat as the devil incarnate. Or at least disprove/substantially back up that it is not what Obama is trying to do.

That it hurts now I can totally understand. I think Obama understands that too. And I understand the objections. The question is whether it could be a medicine worth taking. Can't claim I have the answer there. But I am willing to allow for some benefit of doubt.

[Zuiderelle]

282. Are you fucking serious? Do you REALLY think that "softening up the evangelical right" to our cause

is the effective way to go? REALLY? Unfuckingbelievable. Did you happen to read the Pope's Christmas message? That's the same opinion as the evangelical right. Trying to soften them up is futile and idiotic. That's why what Obama did is also futile and idiotic, and betraying of all Americans who believe in civil rights.

Having Warren's kind of viewpoint, so similar to the Pope's, on a world stage can do nothing BUT hurt us. Medicine? No, I'm not willing to take cyanide to cure homophobia.

[dbmk]

286. I can't assess whether its the effective way to go.

But I have yet to see Obama make a futile and idiotic move. Thats why I am willing to afford some doubt.

And every group has their less than harcore members - I am pretty sure you can find self proclaimed catholics in favour of gay marriage?

[Zuiderelle]

288. But you see, in choosing Warren, Obama DID make an idiotic move.

It's already hurting us because it's alienating us. I can't believe you don't see that. And what does your last sentence have to do with anything? Every group has their less than hardcore members? Yes, so? And yes, I know many Catholics and people of several of Christian faiths who support gay marriage. What's your point? Warren has emphatically stated that he is AGAINST gay marriage, and that he believes homosexuality to be like pedophilia and incest. It's absolutely astounding to me that ANYONE on this site could defend this choice by Obama.

[dbmk]

310. Well, I wasn't the one who was bringing up the Pope

..as yardstick for an entire group. I was not the one arguing that an entire religious denomination was out of reach. And Warren delivers reach to that group.

It might well prove to be a gamble that does not pay off. And if so, I shall be the first to admit that I misread the man. But I honestly thinks he sees it as a way forward for everyone.

And don't think I don't see that this would hurt. I do. I might be abusing the luxury of my sort of sideline position here when I take the view I do. I can't tell for sure. But make no mistake; I DO hope that LGBTs get full and equal rights instated asap. Anything I write here is not an attempt to delay that or to excuse decisions that going against that. I am just hoping that Obama is smarter and more effective than most when it comes finding the fastest path. And I am going to afford him some slack, because he has not disappointed me yet on that front. What IF it is the start of a less divisive public discourse? A broadening of perspective and understanding? What IF Obama totally flips the game on Warren with support for the gay community at the same event? There is more than one preacher at that event. Warren can't go out and denounce that afterwards. He can end up lending credibility to the other speakers at the event - in the eyes of his flock. It goes both ways.

I can understand if you would argue it was not really my slack to give - and I would even yield some ground there.
But thats my position at least.

[Zuiderelle]

336. I didn't bring up uthe Pope as a yardstick for Catholics, just as a comparison for Warren.

Though the Pope DOES have influence over all Catholics, just as Warren has influence over a lot of evangelical Americans, and will have MORE influence after this inauguration.

Though I understand your hope that this is a move that will prove beneficial and that Obama won't disappoint, he's already disappointed me by saying two days before the election that he is against gay marriage. Inviting this person who is even MORE against gay marriage is a slap in the face. I also understand that you think he must think this is a way forward, but I see it as betraying a portion of us to reach others, and that is never a good thing.

But in the end, I'm with you, in that I hope that Obama comes through for us and does what's right despite what I see as a betrayal and bad decision on his part.

[GoneOffShore]

449. Voice of reason - thanks.

[shellgame26]

495. Be careful

It's dangerous these days to MAKE SENSE 'round these parts.

[DutchLiberal]

106. BWAHAHAHAHA!

:rofl:

[Zuiderelle]

215. OMG! ROFL! LMAO!

I can hardly breathe! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[tkmorris]

277. Your entire OP was opinion, labeled as "facts"

Christ that shit annoys me. Can't people tell the difference?

[PeaceNikki]

281. Sigh... if he agrees with your opinion, then it's a fact.

Otherwise he will call you slanderous and morally repugnant.

[YOY]

385. He calls them "truths" actually. Big difference between "facts" and "truths".

"Facts" are scientific and indisputable.

"Truths" are philosophical and quite debatable and prone to being contradicted by opposing "truths".

I'm not agreeing with Nomad here...just pointing out that there is a difference.

[LanternWaste]

253. As recently as two years ago, I would have disagreed...

As recently as two years ago, I would have disagreed with you. But in the lead-up to the primaries, through the primaries, and now the Warren fiasco, I'm beginning to perceive quite a bit more passive-aggressive hostility towards the gay community on DU than I would have otherwise thought possible-- replete with RW code-words.

But then again, it always a helpful reminder to me that DU is made up of humans first; and only then, Democrats. That thin veneer of tolerance and progressivism we hold to can only be spread so thin before we begin to see actual faces...

[donheld]

212. And it appears to me that so are you

one of the ones who promotes the Us vs Them crap.
Some of the gay community is way over playing this and it needs to stop now.
I say this as a gay man and a very strong supporter of rights for all humans.

[Zuiderelle]

218. Ah, another "I say this as a gay person" posts.

:eyes:

[PeaceNikki]

37. I appreciate you using me as "an example", Wolsh... but you don't know me.

[Zuiderelle]

219. If the US v THEM must stop, then OPs like this thread need to stop.

Because this whole shitstain starts out as THEM v US.

[NWHarkness]

354. The whole uproar would have died down by now

Except, every time I refresh the board, another straight person has started a new thread lecturing gays on how they are supposed to feel.

[tbyg52]

401. You won't see any from me

I don't see this as a topic on which reasonable progressives can disagree.

The man is against basic civil rights for some groups of people (not just gays). Therefore his being given this position of honor is indefensible. End of story.

We could argue as to whether Obama is calculating or just stupid on this issue, but it doesn't change the fact that Warren shouldn't have been invited to give the invocation.

We could argue as to the best way to minimize the damage - that would be a productive argument.

[anachro1]

367. blind troublemakers!

Pulls those claws back, kitty...

[IndianaJones]

30. the sins of the gay community have blinded them. let us open their eyes, that they may see. nt.

[Neecy]

68. the sins of the gay community?

Please tell me you forgot the sarcasm icon.

[ThomCat]

69. He's always sarcastic.

:P

[DutchLiberal]

103. Sarcasm icons are for people to stupid to recognize sarcasm.

No personal attack intended.

No, really.

And I'm not sarcastic either.

No, REALLY!

[Starbucks Anarchist]

19. Bullshit.

Warren was a very vocal advocate of Prop 8 and compared gay marriage to pedophilia and incest.

Giving him a stage, while not a policy endorsement, is tantamount to ignoring his Neanderthal views despite their clear effect on GLBT people, among other groups.

And since when does tolerance come into play when bigots are in the picture? Warren and those like him actively sought to deny GLBT people civil rights, despite GLBTs never provoking him or attempting to take away his rights.

[Name removed]

413. Deleted message

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

[Neecy]

21. you lost me on 'noble gesture'

Not only does Warren actively campaign against my human rights, but he compares my relationships to child molestation and incest. You might have included that in your little list.

[NJmaverick]

27. Can you describe in detail his "active campaign"?

[Neecy]

39. Certainly

Warren claimed in 2004 that gay marriage was one of the five non-negotiable items which should determine their vote.

This is what he sent out to his mega-church before election day, and it was widely quoted in the mainstream press:

"For 5,000 years, EVERY culture and EVERY religion -- not just Christianity -- has defined marriage as a contract between men and women. There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population. This is one issue that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have publicly opposed the redefinition of marriage to include so-called 'gay marriage.' Even some gay leaders, like Al Rantel of KABC oppose watering down the definition of marriage.

"Of course, my longtime opposition is well known. This is not a political issue, it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about. There is no doubt where we should stand on this issue."

"This will be a close contest, maybe even decided by a few thousand votes. I urge you to VOTE YES on Proposition 8 -- to preserve the biblical definition of marriage. Don't forget to vote!"

He also claimed - falsely - that Prop 8 would prohibit him from preaching hatred in his church:

"There were all kinds of threats that if that did not pass, then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn’t think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships. And that would be hate speech. To me, we should have freedom of speech. And you should be able to have freedom of speech to make your position, and I should be able to have freedom of speech to make my position. And can we do this in a civil way?"

Typical scaremongering, based on a total lie.

And along with likening our relationships to child molestation and incest, Wiki quotes him as follows:

Warren has stated that homosexual behavior is not a natural way of life and and that gay marriage is not a civil right....Asked about the difference between himself and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Warren claimed that "it's a matter of tone," meaning they hold essentially the same beliefs but simply have differing ways of expressing them.

[Prophet 451]

63. He's also full of shit

The definition of marriage has been changed numerous times in the last 5000 years and isn't even universally constant today. Also, gay people, according to most estimates, are 8-12% of the population, not 2%.

Geez, I know there are differing opinions on the morality part but I wish more people would call him when he's just flat out wrong. Warren is entitled to his own beliefs but not his own facts.

[NJmaverick]

65. I think you and I differ on what an active campaign is

[DutchLiberal]

109. I think you just got owned!

:rofl:

[Zuiderelle]

221. SCORE!

:rofl:

[DutchLiberal]

332. Sadly, your signature line has become a hollow phrase this past week...

I wish Skinner would enforce that rule, but... I'm afraid it would sweep out half of DU... I think he can't afford losing that many contributors (talking about donations here; cold hard cash) and that's why it's permitted to go on.

The homophobic reactions are appalling. Sometimes I don't know anymore whether I'm on DU or FreeRepublic...

[NWHarkness]

356. Warren told tens of thousands of followers how to vote

Sounds like an active campaign to me.

Meanwhile, I know people who did one phone bank shift and think they single handedly won the presidency for Obama.

[ThomCat]

41. Oh come on. At this point you're trolling.

Anyone who says that Warren didn't campaign for Prop 8
and hasn't publicly compared us to child molesters
and isn't actively funding an international ministry that condemns homosexuality

is just out trying to cause trouble. You've had a weeks worth of posts with abundant information. There is very little about this ministries and his public speeches, and the causes he promotes that isn't known here.

So give it a rest already. You're not fooling anyone. Don't you ever get sick of playing these games?

[NJmaverick]

82. So far there are at least 42 people that strongly disagree with your opinions

maybe you should rethink and reexamine.

[Starry Messenger]

92. Or 42 people with reading comprehension problems.

It's a serious issue in America.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

93. Look at post #43, genius.

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

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

[racaulk]

204. "More people agree with me, so I'm right."

I'm sure the supporters of Prop 8 said the same.

[Name removed]

224. Deleted message

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

[Starbucks Anarchist]

234. Skinner should make it a sticky.

:evilgrin:

[NWHarkness]

357. Actually, that proves his premise, and not yours. n/t

[Starbucks Anarchist]

43. Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/blogs/newsandviews/index.html?contentid=1502

[CakeGrrl]

23. K&R

[busymom]

31. thumbs up!!!

[IndianaJones]

32. 14) justification for hateful bigotry and grievous mistakes are my forte. nt.

[Politicub]

33. Warren's answer to poverty? The prosperity gospel

I'm so sick of hearing about how Warren is committed to alleviating poverty. It's not true, really.

If anyone cared to do 10 minutes worth of googling, it's easy to see how Warren is an advocate of the prosperity gospel, encouraging people to pray away their struggles with poverty just like they can pray away the gay. There is a token donation here and there, but that's about it. Otherwise, it's lean on Jayzus for your economic woes.

I'm still reading about his take on AIDS, but what I've seen isn't encouraging. It appears that he is up leveling the message about chastity rings, with the embrace of heterosexual HIV positive folk thrown in for good measure.

[Recursion]

36. Umm... and massive social programs NT

[Zenlitened]

34. I don't think you'd recognize a truth if it bit you...

... in the Bill of Rights.

[lamp_shade]

40. I give you an A+ on every point, Nomad. Wish we could recommend more than once.

[Neecy]

44. I find your 'truths' heartbreaking

Not only because of the self-righteous tone, but because so many of my fellow DU'ers actually believe this to be 'truth' based on the enthusiastic 'thumbs up' and recs this is getting.

You don't know the 'truth' of our lives and I resent this patronizing garbage.

And by the way, I have a life....NOT a 'lifestyle'. The fact you used that phrase tells me a lot.

[ThomCat]

45. That fact that so many people here agree with this garbage

and think we have a "lifestyle" is part of what makes me doubt that they really stand by us as anything more than a convenience.

They look good if they can think of themselves as tolerant. But if that tolerance got tested and it wasn't purely a matter of their self-image, and it wasn't so convenient, how many of them would stand by us.

I don't think it would be very many. That's why I think that it's only a small minority of straight people here who we can really consider allies. And that's why we keep having problems with rampant homophobia outbreaks.

[Neecy]

53. I hadn't let this affect me

But for some reason this post - and the response it's getting - has really put me over the edge. Honestly.

We've explained our objections to Warren repeatedly - to the annoyance of some of our fellow 'progressives' - and this post overlooks every single point we've raised, insulted us by referring to our 'lifestyles', chided us for not being tolerant of this bigot...I could go on and on, but you get it. To top it off he refers to his crap as 'annoying truths' and there's a rush on to rec it.

I've read a lot of insults here this week, along the lines of "the sun doesn't rise and set in your bedrooms" and that we shouldn't enjoy "real" marriages, but this one post has done more to anger me than anything I've seen all week. I was going to refute it point by point, but why bother? The people who agree with him wouldn't read it anyway.

[Prophet 451]

67. You do have a "lifestyle"

As far as I can tell, it involves going to work, paying bills, raising kids and maybe the odd night out. Pretty much the same as my own lifestyle... only with worse music.

*ducks*

[ThomCat]

70. Okay, I can buy that.

:P

[WillParkinson]

261. That is not a lifestyle...

That's a life.

[Texasgal]

324. I find that extremely offensive.

I am NOT one of those people who just stand by because it's "convenient" Or because my "self-image" is at stake.

It's just simply not true. I suspect that many a DU'er feel the same way.

[unapatriciated]

382. count me in the small minority....

Warren's strides in poverty and aids have strings attached.
If you a submit to "salvation" and "repent" than he will help you.
Teaching safe sex and providing condoms has no place in "his" fight against aids.
His kind of help does very little to alleviate the aids problem.
Education has no place in "his" aids program

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4694671

[PeaceNikki]

47. Ayup...

I agree with you.

:(

[sundog]

50. lifestyle

that's rich

amazing


what a sanctimonious prick he is

[ThomCat]

51. Always has been.

Long history there.

[NJmaverick]

76. The truth can be painful. That is why many people are willing to tell white lies

or hold their tongue from speaking them. However this issue is too important to stay silent.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[NJmaverick]

94. The truth is not something you pick out of a menu, it is what it is

There are many truths, that I didn't list, but it doesn't make the ones I did any less valid. Other than calling me names, you haven't offered any sort of factual evidence or a reasoned argument to dispute a single one of them.

[Neecy]

101. Because I have. Repeatedly.

Here's the game:

You post a list of 'truths' that have been refuted in this forum again...and again...and again.

Then there's a snarky little post upthread that claims we'll come 'shit' in your thread.

I could spend a half an hour posting again, refuting every single bs 'truth', and none of the fellow 42 DU'ers who recommended this thread will read it - because it'll be viewed as 'shitting' in your thread.

If you've read any of the Warren threads - and you have, you've posted in them - you know our reasoned argument. I'm not playing this game with you. I think you get some kind of thrill out of it, and it's sick.

[PeaceNikki]

95. Calling BULLSHIT on your BULLSHIT "truths"

1) Warren's priorities are not opposing gay marriage (or abortion, the forgotten view), rather it's poverty, Aids and global warming. In other words he was not a leader or the strongest advocate for prop 8.

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/12/rick-warren-shame-on-you-obama.html
WARREN HAS SAID THAT ONLY FIVE ISSUES ARE "NON-NEGOTIABLE" - his opposition to abortion, stem-cell research, cloning, gay rights and euthanasia - which puts him firmly in the camp of the other religious hatemongers....

5) I already called you out on your #5 and that didn't go real well.

7) We won the election. Giving Warren a chance to say a prayer is a noble gesture, not defeat.

This is an opinion. It's not a "fact" or a "truth", nomad. Did you pass an English class in high school?


8) The real enemy is the ignorance and intolerance that allowed prop 8 and other equally abhorrent laws to pass. Attacking the ignorant has never proven to be an effective path to enlightenment, it only causes them to close their minds and dig in their heals.

Again... opinion and grammar issues (they don't dig "heals")

11) It's better to give respect, when asking for respect. In other words not respecting a person's religious views, is a bad start when telling them that they in turn should respect you and your civil rights and life style. Respect begets respect.

Jesus, you and the fucking commas! Anyway this is also an opinion. And a shitty one. Do YOU have to ask that others "respect your civil rights". No. You are FUCKING ENTITLED TO THEM REGARDLESS OF "RESPECT", Sparky!

12) Comparing a person's religious beliefs with organized racists, is as offensive and wrong as comparing gay marriage to incest or polygamy.

Bullshit. That's not a fucking "truth".. that's an opinion. And a clueless one at that. Religion is a choice, sexual orientation is not.

[Obamalution]

428. Oh...my goodness...

First of all, I'll disclose that I am a straight man...with gay friends...who agree with me that the corporate media is using this Rick Warren crap as a weapon of mass distraction...and a weapon of mass division (within the democratic party). So far, with the help of supposedly progressive tv and radio show hosts, they are succeeding in dividing the democratic party on this worthless wedge issue. What's progressive about division of the people?... It's an oxymoronic question. By the way, I know that this is the innauguration we're talking about here, but nevertheless it is still symbolic... It's not like Obama is hiring Rick Warren into his administration or anything close to it. I wonder why no one is talking about gay-FRIENDLY Joseph Lowery giving the benediction... It's because the corporate media doesn't WANT that to distract us from their weapon of mass distraction. Thank you.

[DutchLiberal]

111. 'Lifestyle' indeed IS a give-away.

[Zuiderelle]

227. The fact that he used "lifestyle" says everything there is to say about this poster.

[Runcible Spoon]

46. in academia, we evolved past cultural relativism in the 80's.

I see the a lot of people on DU still thinks that ideology is Teh Awesome. Relativism is inherently wrong, because there is no general equality in social positions and power across the board that would allow for us all to live in one big but varied rainbow. That and, live and let live only works when there aren't others actively trying to legislate their beliefs over your rights.

[S_E_Fudd]

48. #8 is key...all true however...K&R...nt

[Danger Mouse]

49. Hmm...some you got right, some you got way wrong.

A mixed bag. :shrug:

[Starry Messenger]

54. I don't think all the people who rec'd this read down to #12.

12) Comparing a person's religious beliefs with organized racists, is as offensive and wrong as comparing gay marriage to incest or polygamy.


Religious beliefs are not something you are born with. You may be "born into a religion", but the beliefs you hold are ultimately your own decision. And there are laws in place to protect your right to hold them.

Gay is something you are born with. Marriage rights for gay people are not protected in this country.

[IndianaJones]

56. yeah they did. nt.

[Starry Messenger]

66. Well if that's true I hope they read all the way down here too and think again.

Because anyone who rec'd this has a lot of work to do on themselves.

[NJmaverick]

87. Why is it wrong to be anti-Semitic, but it's OK to be anti Evangelical/Catholic

[Starry Messenger]

97. How does that address my post? n/t

[NJmaverick]

121. Well unless there is a good answer to the question, it pretty much dispells notions you put forth

[Starry Messenger]

125. ...

So you don't believe people are born gay?

[NJmaverick]

126. You are changing the subject and avoiding answering the question

perhaps it would be easier to admit that your opinions have run into a conflict of reason. It would be far healthier and more productive than your current actions.

[Starry Messenger]

130. ha ha.

So it's just an opinion that gays are born gay? That was the point I was originally trying to address in your post. You changed this discussion to how you think the rules are enforced on this site. I'm fascinated to see how far you are willing to take this...

[NJmaverick]

135. Again you change the subject when faced with facts that show you opions are invalid

still I posit this question to people that are conservative and believe that homosexuality is a sin. I ask them when did they decide to become attracted to men and women. I have asked that questions to dozens of people and not one person has ever been able to tell me when that momement was. Seems that sexual attraction is a biological imperative that we have no conscious control of.


Now to get back to the matter at hand. Why is it OK for you to be anti-Evengelical/Catholic but it's consider wrong to be anti-Semetic?

[Starry Messenger]

141. ...

[Malikshah]

58. What condescending clap trap. Too bad TPTB feel this is OK.

Being talked down to.

Having one's rights removed and then told to embrace the offender.

What a shameful piece, unworthy of this site's goals.

[ThomCat]

62. I wish it was unworthy of this site.

But unfortunately, it's typical. :(

[Malikshah]

71. Yes. The "truth" that this site has been supportive is by no means

supported by the actions seen over these last few days.

It is clear that some cannot understand an existence beyond their own. They need to suck it up and realize their failings when it comes to others who are not like them.

[NJmaverick]

79. Really? What is the one liberal view every DUer must have, by law?

[Malikshah]

148. Wow-- obfuscation now. The last sign of desperation.

The issue at hand is that, much like the President Elect, the OP here is wrong-headed. A result of not thinking things through; lack of perspective; a limited understanding of the nature of basic rights possibly.

In both cases, there is a solution. Acceptance of the mistake and a retraction.

To continue to defend the indefensible is simply adding fuel to the bonfire upon which the rights of many are being burned.

[Zuiderelle]

246. Obfuscation is apparently a lifestyle choice for him.

[Name removed]

409. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

410. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Neecy]

72. up to 40 recs

Nice, eh? Feel the love!

[Malikshah]

74. Yup-- just goes to show that many appear to think that the GLBT are

not worth anything.

[NJmaverick]

77. "not worth anything"? What is the ONLY liberal position every DUer

must have, to be a member of DU?

[Malikshah]

80. Basic rights for all would be a good place to start. It appears the annoying little truths thing

didn't work out so well.

Maybe one can actually take some time, reflect, re-read the supposed truths and try again.

As they stand, they are anything but true, and to say they are is hurtful and not productive in the obtaining of basic rights for all.

[NJmaverick]

84. So the one and only rule is to support the LBGT community

and yet you claim they are not supported. For some reason you have neglected to explain the facts and reasons you used to come to that conclusion.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

96. Because you're negating the feelings of 99% of GLBT DUers.

Simply supporting gay marriage doesn't allow you to disregard people's deep-seated feelings about having their rights taken away, which Warren ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNED FOR.

[NJmaverick]

131. That really isn't addressing the issue

Still I am more concerned about truth, justice and fairness for all and seeing our nation rise above the terrible situation Bush and the GOP has put it in. "Feelings" (hurt or otherwise) just don't rank very high, compared to those items. Men and women are dying in Iraq, people are losing their homes or can't afford medical care. People's civil rights are being violated and there are Americans going hungry. These are the important issues to me, not placating anyone's feelings (including my own).

[Starbucks Anarchist]

134. You can't be this fucking dense.

Still I am more concerned about truth, justice and fairness for all and seeing our nation rise above the terrible situation Bush and the GOP has put it in. "Feelings" (hurt or otherwise) just don't rank very high, compared to those items. Men and women are dying in Iraq, people are losing their homes or can't afford medical care. People's civil rights are being violated and there are Americans going hungry. These are the important issues to me, not placating anyone's feelings (including my own).

Do you think gay people aren't affected by these issues? Do you know that gays are one of the least-protected classes in the eyes of the law, including the right to housing, medical care, employment and civil rights?

That's why their "feelings" are important.

:banghead:

[NJmaverick]

137. What you fail to understand is I am more concerned with issues

while you are more concerned with feelings, than you are issues.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

140. I just explained the issues, you troglodyte.

Gays are discriminated against in multiple ways, including the very same issues you were complaining about -- war, housing and civil rights.

[Zuiderelle]

268. It's almost like someone else is reading the responses to his posts to him.

Maybe he's unable to see and having some crazy right-wing friend of his read the responses out loud, and they are playing a trick on him. No matter what, it's apparent that he's not reading what's being written.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

274. It's like his mind is nomadic.

[Zuiderelle]

276. It should have flown south for the winter.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

278. That would explain all the crap on this thread.

[Zuiderelle]

279. Bombs Awaaaaaay!

:rofl:

It IS splattered all over the place, isn't it?

[shellgame26]

496. Is it only gays who are discriminated against in these issues?

You attack him and call him names then turn around and accuse him of attacking all gays because he disagrees with you.

[Malikshah]

138. I'm afraid it is the case. I've refrained from providing graphic images of GLBT basic rights abuses

Right now, it's like a broken record with the OP.

[Zuiderelle]

228. Unfortunately he can. I've seen it before.

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

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

[Zuiderelle]

233. He won't.

[Malikshah]

136. So you think that it's only about "feelings"? Really??!??

Wow.

You just don't get it do you?

You do know, that basic rights covers a lot of bases (poverty, livelihood, lives)

Is it so wrong to want basic rights for all?

Feelings? .... wow. Just... wow.

[NJmaverick]

139. Nope, I am responding to a poster that does

still go about constructing your strawman, it's looking pretty impressive.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

145. I'll explain it to you slowly.

1) People like you (who dismiss GLBTs' concern about Warren) are not attentive to their feelings.

2) People like you (who put up strawmen of "more important issues") fail to realize that gays are at least equally affected, and in some cases much more, by these "more important issues" like housing, civil rights, etc.

So yes, you fail to appreciate GLBTs' feelings, but you also seek to dismiss them as "pet issues" in the large scheme of things, when in fact, they are part of the very fabric of "the large scheme of things."

And yet, you dismiss all their concerns as "feelings." Comprende?

[Malikshah]

105. Don't put words into someone's mouth. Shameful and beneath you.

Here is how the "annoying little truths" are more than annoying; they are ill-thought out and hurtful.


1) Warren's priorities are not opposing gay marriage (or abortion, the forgotten view), rather it's poverty, Aids and global warming. In other words he was not a leader or the strongest advocate for prop 8.

He supported Prop 8 and has a large "pulpit" from which to do so. He is on record equating gay marriage with incest and pedophilia. A person may do good in their life, but if they do evil as well, they should not get a pass. Ever.

2) Allowing Warren to say a prayer does not take away a single person's civil right, nor does it change Obama's positions or the Government's positions or policies on gay rights.

Giving Warren the honor legitimates him even moreso in the eyes of many; this allows him a wider audience from which to preach his hatred for the lives of the GLBT community, however honeyed his words might be. By legitimating Warren, Obama is casting his administration's lot with him. By not calling him out publicly for his hateful statements, Obama is implicitly accepting them.

3) Reaching out and trying to find common ground means you are going to be reaching out for people you DON'T agree with. It's not reaching out if you only surround yourself with people who agree with you.

Reaching out does not entail accepting bigoted views. Honoring a bigot is not reaching out. It is honoring a bigot.

4) DU is not and never has been anything but supportive of the GBLT community

The last few days have shown this not to be the case by a long shot. From the top down, the tin-ear exhibited is matched only by that of the President elect.

5) DU has not collectively (there may be isolated incidents out of frustration) told the GBLT community to "STFU". They have spoken out when people have posted views and positions they don't agree with.

The statements have by no means been isolated. They range from STFU to stop being annoying. They are, in sum, hurtful and counterproductive.

6) When Obama enters the White House he will become the strongest advocate for gay rights, the White House has ever seen.

You are not Cassandra, nor am I. His record thus far does not bode well.

7) We won the election. Giving Warren a chance to say a prayer is a noble gesture, not defeat.

There is nothing noble about honoring a hateful bigot. Nothing. Never has been noble, never will be noble. It is a sign of weakness of character and fear.

8) The real enemy is the ignorance and intolerance that allowed prop 8 and other equally abhorrent laws to pass. Attacking the ignorant has never proven to be an effective path to enlightenment, it only causes them to close their minds and dig in their heals.

The real enemy is those who keep silent when rights are stripped away or denied for whatever reason.

9) The vast majority of knowledgeable people believe that a nation functions best when united, rather than divided.

That sounds vaguely fascist. Unity is defined in many ways and comes in many visages. It is irrelevant to the issue.

10) Tolerance is considered a virtue. It's a virtue for everyone including liberals, conservatives, religious and non-religious.

By who? Tolerance is a red herring used by many in the past and present. Tolerance is not enough when it comes to basic rights.

11) It's better to give respect, when asking for respect. In other words not respecting a person's religious views, is a bad start when telling them that they in turn should respect you and your civil rights and life style. Respect begets respect.

Respect begins with understanding of mutual rights. Religion being used to deny people basic human rights is unworthy of any divine being and should not be respected as being truly worthy of any divinity.

12) Comparing a person's religious beliefs with organized racists, is as offensive and wrong as comparing gay marriage to incest or polygamy.

Religious beliefs were used to legitimate slavery for centuries, and are still used to legitimate the oppression of women, and those in the GLBT community, among others. There is nothing wrong whatsoever in pointing out the bigoted use of faith to oppress others. It honors the divine to point out the abuse of faith.

13) The world is not black and white, rather it's many shades of gray. The "either you are with me or against me" mentality is simply misguided and wrong. People are more complex than a single issue or position.

When it comes to basic human rights, the world is indeed black and white. Those that wish to support the choice of Warren have missed that basic issue.

[NJmaverick]

128. You are avoiding answering and addressing the major point I raised

Seeing how it pretty much shoots down a major claim of yours, I could understand why. However just because it's understandable doesn't mean it's the best course of action.

[Malikshah]

132. Wow-- I address how each of the truths are anything but and still one is not pleased

Each of my points address the issue of basic rights. You fixate on GLBT rights and whether or not they are to be a priority.

Maybe, the real truth hurts. It might be helpful to accept the fact that the OP was not very well thought out and should be redacted in some fashion.

To continue on in a similar vein merely compounds the problem.

It really is a shame that the concept of basic rights for all seem beyond some.

[ThomCat]

83. Or else they're so taken in by an well worded trash

that they'll sell us out to bigotry just to feel good about themselves, and then pretend they didn't sell us out. x(

[Skittles]

345. I never thought I would see this kind of crap on DU

but after the primaries, I should not be surprised

[Ratty]

81. Why is a straight supremacist acceptable but presumably a white supremacist would not be?

Yes, an argument others have made but NOBODY has answered. Somehow a straight supremacist is morally less reprehensible than a white supremacist. And if a large enough group of people think it's OK then apparently people think they should be tolerated.

There's no middle ground here. I can't get why this is even an issue here. Obama fucked up.

[ThomCat]

85. That's a damned clear way of putting it.

I wish that wasn't what it is, but that's exactly what it is.

[galaxy21]

107. Why did everyone (including presumably gay voters) vote for a straight supremacist ?

Barack was acceptable enough to vote for, wasn't he? Would a white supremacist' have been acceptable to vote for? Of course not.

There's both predjudices, of course....but different. I'm not excusing straight supremacy but I can understand why its more acceptable for people to accept someone with history of saying homophobic things rather than someone with a history of saying racist things.

Racial division, more than gender or homosexuality, has been the most divisive issue in American history. Anyone with a perceived racist attitude will not be tolerated. Whereas being a sexist or homophobic, is considered bad but not as serious. Its why Hillary was the victim of many sexist comments by comedians, but Barack wasn't subjected to racial jokes.

Again, I'm not saying its right or I agree with it, but it does explain why its seen differently.

[IndianaJones]

114. what does Diana Ross have to do with this? nt

[NJmaverick]

86. Why is it wrong to be anti-Semitic, but it's OK to be anti Evangelical/Catholic

[Ratty]

100. So you're assuming all evangelicals and catholics hate gays?

That's a pretty broad brush you're wielding. I know lots of Catholics that are supportive of gay rights, a few evangelicals too. Obama had a large pool of evangelicals and catholics to pick from. Why'd he choose this guy. Answer: he fucked up.

[NJmaverick]

116. How is that? The Evengelical and Catholic faiths believe gay marriage to be wrong

so to say that people who follow these faiths are the same as being in the KKK, could be reasonable considered in the same vein as anti-Semitism.

[Ratty]

149. Hiding behind religion is no excuse for hate

So, yeah, for those evangelicals and catholics that buy into the gays=evil bullshit and think it's OK because of their religion, I'm anti-them. So what? I don't get your argument. I'm anti-white supremacist too. Should I not be?

[mentalsolstice]

235. This Catholic supports gay marriage

So, now move along to something else, or perhaps even a different forum.

[NJmaverick]

122. Nope, but both these faiths believe gay marriage is worng

and you have said anyone that believes that must hate gays.

[Occulus]

498. If you believe it is wrong, you hate me

And yes, Sparky, it really is that fucking simple.

[dflprincess]

360. As a rule anit-Semitics (like Warren) dislike Jews because they don't pray to Jesus

and for no other reason.

Those of us who get fed up with Evangelical preachers and the Catholic clergy (and I'm speaking as a lapsed Catholic, I'm not "anit-Catholic") do so because we resent those religions trying to push their beliefs down everyone else's throats by attempting to get them made law. I have yet to hear about a move by Orthodox Jews to have shrimp or lobster outlawed.

[PeaceNikki]

88. Calling BULLSHIT on your BULLSHIT "truths"

1) Warren's priorities are not opposing gay marriage (or abortion, the forgotten view), rather it's poverty, Aids and global warming. In other words he was not a leader or the strongest advocate for prop 8.

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/12/rick-warren-shame-on-you-obama.html
WARREN HAS SAID THAT ONLY FIVE ISSUES ARE "NON-NEGOTIABLE" - his opposition to abortion, stem-cell research, cloning, gay rights and euthanasia - which puts him firmly in the camp of the other religious hatemongers....

I already called you out on your #5 and that didn't go real well.

7) We won the election. Giving Warren a chance to say a prayer is a noble gesture, not defeat.

Again... this is an opinion, nomad - did you pass an English class in high school?


8) The real enemy is the ignorance and intolerance that allowed prop 8 and other equally abhorrent laws to pass. Attacking the ignorant has never proven to be an effective path to enlightenment, it only causes them to close their minds and dig in their heals.

Again... opinion and grammar issues (they don't dig "heals")

11) It's better to give respect, when asking for respect. In other words not respecting a person's religious views, is a bad start when telling them that they in turn should respect you and your civil rights and life style. Respect begets respect.

Jesus, you and the fucking commas! Anyway this is also an opinion. And a shitty one. Do YOU have to ask that others "respect your civil rights". No. You are FUCKING ENTITLED TO THEM REGARDLESS OF "RESPECT", Sparky!

12) Comparing a person's religious beliefs with organized racists, is as offensive and wrong as comparing gay marriage to incest or polygamy.

Bullshit. That's not a fucking "truth".. that's an opinion. And a clueless one at that. Religion is a choice, sexual orientation is not.

[DutchLiberal]

98. Comparing gays to pedophiles and incest-lovers is not an 'opinion' to 'disagree' with...

Oh, so gay marriage is not his biggest issues! Phew! Thank God for that! He only thinks gays should be 'cured' in a clinic (which he himself is running), like the nazi's did. Wow, that's a relief. Let's have him on stage. Too bad Jerry Falwell passed away, otherwise Obama could've made it a double treat! After all, we have to reach out to those who want us to disappear. If only the jews had reached out to the nazi's a little bit more... Selfish bastards.

(I'm not gay.)

[alwysdrunk]

104. Excellent post

K&R. I feel like copying your post and posting #6 thirteen times.

[HEyHEY]

108. Human rights are black and white.

Condoning and legitimizing those against them is also black and white.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted sub-thread

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

[dbmk]

147. He didn't say you did not deserve them

Or were not entitled to them.
But that doesn't really change the fact that you don't have them, does it?

The majority isn't there to make this political reality, atm. So unless you start killing people, you better start convincing them. And that is rarely done by alienation. That was his point.

Disagreeing with the tactics used does not mean disagreeing with the goal you aim for.

[PeaceNikki]

154. According to the sorely mistaken, silly-boy, goofball OP, we shouldn't have rights unless we

respect our oppressors.

(better, nomad?)

[dbmk]

254. Shouldn't? Where did he say that?

I saw it more as a suggestion on tactics to get what you deserve.

[Name removed]

258. Deleted message

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

[dbmk]

271. Where on earth did you get that from?

That use of quotes was a severe misrepresentation of what I wrote.

Yeah, we all deserve basic human rights. Some of us just have more than others - that deserve them too.
Was deserve the wrong word? You will have to excuse me then, English is not my native language. I might miss a few facets in words. Lets change it to "get what is rightfully yours". Better?
Was there anything in what I wrote that lead you to believe that was not what I meant?

And who has suggested that it needed to be earned?

[SweetieD]

110. Kick and Recommended

[IndianaJones]

115. did the people rec'ing this crap read #12? Post that as a standalone and it gets locked. nt.

[NJmaverick]

118. Why is it wrong to be anti-Semitic, but it's OK to be anti Evangelical/Catholic?

[Starry Messenger]

120. ...

[Starry Messenger]

153. Up to 50, now.

I wonder how many people who rec'd this feel foolish now?

[lamp_shade]

157. I rec'd it. OP makes excellent points. You should read them.

[Starry Messenger]

161. I did.

All of them.

[PeaceNikki]

163. A few. And several that suck, too.

[nichomachus]

123. So many things wrong with this -- where to begin?

Ah, what the hell, why bother. You can't argue with true believers.

[Raineyb]

124. Your "truths" seem based on a rather faulty premise

You don't have to be gay to be offended by Obama allowing this piece of offal to do the invocation for the inauguration. (Frankly, considering we're a secular nation there ought not be any an invocation in the first place but apparently it's considered perfectly acceptable to slap atheists in the face at every government function but I digress.) Warren is a dominionist. He's a threat to everything this country stands for. He'd be just fine turning this country into a theocracy with people who belong to his subset of Christianity running things. He's a threat to women who think for themselves, anyone who's pro-choice, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Wiccans, other Christian denominations, people who believe in the separation of church and state and of course homosexuals. Basically, he's if you don't think like him you don't deserve a decent life if you get to live at all. This man is not going to be de-fanged by being allowed to give the invocation. If you don't think he's going to use the fact that he will have given the invocation to strengthen himself you are not paying attention. Reaching across the aisle (a notion which is rather overrated) is one thing. Empowering one's enemy is quite another. For all the pulling together this move was supposed to do I've only seen evidence of the Warren pick tearing people apart.

Fail!

:thumbsdown:

Regards

[kath]

129. religious views are one thing - THEOCRATIC views are quite another.

No quarter should be given to the abhorrent goals of the Dominionists.

[Raineyb]

150. Indeed!

None whatsoever!

Regards

[lamp_shade]

151. So much for civility.

[Creideiki]

482. Civility is over-rated when teh icky people are in the picture.

[kdpeters]

155. I agree with all of the above except number 12.

Just because it's religious doesn't exempt it from being bigoted or being called out for being bigoted. Comparing gay marriage to incest or polygamy is bigoted and it doesn't let one off the hook to claim that their religious beliefs mandate it.

Other than that, this gay man agrees with all of the rest of what you said. One of the most disturbing elements of this current scandal to me as a gay man is seeing gay people attacking other gay people with names like "Uncle Tom", "Log Cabinite", or "self-hating" for not being sufficiently outraged.

[NJmaverick]

182. Thank you, number 12 is a challenging one

I have always been of the mindset of respecting another person's religious beliefs. I think going after someone trying to impose their beliefs on others, is fair game, but not the beliefs themselves. At the very least, it's highly inappropriate to liken it to the organized hatred of the KKK. I know people who are profoundly religious, and free of hate, who don't believe in gay marriage. I know others that use their religion as an excuse to hate and be intolerant of gays. So that's why I included number 12, it's never a good thing to be painting with that sort of broad brush.

[Sebastian Doyle]

162. Adolf Hitler created freeways and Volkswagens

Both of which were worthy inventions. But doesn't mean I'd try to sell Jewish people on what a "great guy" he was.

[NJmaverick]

167. and we just got the Godwin's law post

What is Godwin's law?


:Godwin's Law: /prov./ "As a Usenet discussion grows
longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once
this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis
has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's
Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on
thread length in those groups.

[LanternWaste]

265. Sometimes it is a relevant analogy though-- for example, as used.

Sometimes it is a relevant analogy though-- for example, as just previously used.

And until Godwin's Law passes a valid, peer review for legitimacy vs. "just another trendy internet fad", the mere mention of Godwin's Law presupposes to me at least that the user has little valid retort (other than just another trendy internet fad).

[bvar22]

296. Entirely appropriate in this case.

There are also valid parallels to Chamberlain and The Vichy French.....people who rationalize their tolerance of the intolerable.....and what eventually happens to them.

[slackmaster]

262. He was kind to dogs too

He eschewed alcohol, and ate mostly a vegetarian diet.

[Sebastian Doyle]

273. A German who didn't drink beer?

Well that should have been their first clue that something was wrong with him! :beer:

[krispos42]

374. Pictures of Nazis always seem much more threatening in color

I always figured because B&W was "a long time ago" and color was "recent".

When they showed "World War Two in Color" on the History Channel a few years ago it was a little unnerving.

[Zuiderelle]

171. Yawn

[Zuiderelle]

172. It's not a "lifestyle"

[Zuiderelle]

176. It is completely appropriate to compare religious beliefs, when they are extremely bigoted, to

organized racism. How is it different? If he considers gays to be pedophiles and criminals and preaches that belief to others, how is it different than a clan leader telling his followers that African Americans are less deserving to live than white Americans? He may not be actually telling people to kill us, but he is definitely inspiring some to do just that.

[Zuiderelle]

177. Not respecting our concern for civil rights is a bad place to start when expecting respect from us.

[Zuiderelle]

178. We won the election. Giving Warren the privilege of speaking is an ignoble gesture.

[Zuiderelle]

180. Your post stinks, and the fact that you got over 50 recommendations for this trash makes DU stink.

[phleshdef]

181. LOL, then why are you bumping it every minute or so?

[NJmaverick]

183. Someone is trying to inflate their post count by making 1 post

into a half a dozen.

[phleshdef]

185. Okay.

[phleshdef]

186. I understand now.

[NJmaverick]

188. LOL!

[phleshdef]

189. Hehe, okay, okay, I'll stop now.

[phleshdef]

187. Pretty cheap tactic if you ask me.

[Zuiderelle]

201. You guys have so much in common, you should start your own self-love group.

[phleshdef]

222. Jealous much? =P

[Zuiderelle]

200. Why would I need to inflate my post count?

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

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

[Zuiderelle]

198. Because I just read the tiresomely long OP and wanted my comments in the subject lines.

[HamdenRice]

190. Very well said! Here's to tolerance! krnt

[sundog]

193. how noble of you

[AlCzervik]

220. yes, a real profile in courage.

[Bluebear]

225. My big, brave hero!

:crazy:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

194. Do you think being gay is a "lifestyle"?

Because the OP does.

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

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

[Starbucks Anarchist]

199. LOL!

Ironically, he's black, so you'd think he'd understand the concept of equality.

[Zuiderelle]

203. Yes! Turnabout being fairplay and all.

And tools being tools.

:patriot:

[sundog]

197. they both went to the sarah palin school of tolerance

[countingbluecars]

229. I think you need to be careful

in assuming that everyone knows that "lifestyle" is an anti-gay codeword. I had no idea until this thread. I googled, I read, and now I understand.

[Zuiderelle]

231. Why be careful? You read it, you googled and now you understand.

I don't understand the "be careful" comment.

[countingbluecars]

238. I mean you shouldn't assume

that someone is intolerant based on the use of the word. Nothing negative meant by "be careful".

[Zuiderelle]

241. Well, this poster has been around long enough to know.

And he has a bit of a history in this area.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

232. Most people here do know that.

And based on HamdenRice's earlier posts regarding this topic, I think he knows that, too.

[Zuiderelle]

202. LOL! Here's to (in)tolerance!

:rofl:

[racaulk]

208. You're wrong on #11, for two reasons:

11) It's better to give respect, when asking for respect. In other words not respecting a person's religious views, is a bad start when telling them that they in turn should respect you and your civil rights and life style. Respect begets respect.

1. You have the timing backwards. Warren's religious views are disrespected BECAUSE he disrespects the notion that gays deserve full and equal rights. The religious right struck first in this battle, not teh gays.

2. It's not a "lifestyle," it's a life. "Gay lifestyle" is a right wing buzzword/talking point that, unfortunately, too many "progressives" buy into.

[NJmaverick]

223. Well one it comes to giving respect, most times it comes down to the person

that is willing to go first. Often both sides perceive they are the victims, merely responding.

As for lifestyle, I think we are getting into a bit of semantics here. Getting married or staying single are both life style choices, which is what I am referring to.

[Zuiderelle]

236. Bullshit. You are not referring to lifestyle as "getting married or staying single"

Holy crap, you're annoying.

[NJmaverick]

247. It's the Shadow

"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"

[Zuiderelle]

248. What an odd response. I'll take that as an admission then.

[NJmaverick]

251. Nope, just pointing out the level of delusion reached by some

[Zuiderelle]

263. Exactly. You are amazing that way.

I didn't think you could reach such a level as this. But you did. Congratulations!

[NJmaverick]

264. I am not sure if I should laugh or feel sorry for you

[Zuiderelle]

267. Well, I know I don't feel sorry for you, but I am laughing at you.

Does this thread make you feel all big and proud of yourself? Does it validate your wrongheaded words? Do the people who are falling over themselves to agree with you (who are, by the way, outnumbered by those who don't) make you feel like a big man?

[NJmaverick]

269. Pretty sure a half dozen people spaming the hell out this thread

does not out number the over 60 who reccommended it. Then again it appears you prefer to distort reality to fit your opinions and views, rather than the other way around.

As for how I feel about the number of recs, I am honored. My thoughts were honed after many debates and discussions on this matter, here at DU, as well as considerable thought. I am glad to see that my case, which I believe to be a sound and valid one, did not fall on deaf ears.

[Zuiderelle]

270. It is interesting how you're spamming your own thread.

Very proud of yourself it seems. Honored to be recommended for your ignorance. That's all kinds of funny.

[racaulk]

272. 62 people have recommended this thread...out of the 4,000+ that have viewed it.

That does not a majority make.

And even if the majority of DUers do agree with you, it doesn't necessarily mean you're right. The lesson learned in California last month should have taught us that, if nothing else.

[NJmaverick]

283. Wow! over 4000 views I am in shock

Even taking out the percentage of repeat views, that is an impression number of people that have read what I have to say. Like I said before I am honored and humbled by the response.

[Zuiderelle]

290. Yes, humbled, I'm sure.

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

292. Do you really think hate filled spammers can take away the recs

the positive reviews and the massive number of views? I am happy and honored by the response, it's humbling. No ammount of spam or insults from a hate filled handful can take that away from me. It's a concept you might want to try and emulate. It might reduce your irrational anger and rage.

:hug:

[Zuiderelle]

295. LOL!

:rofl: Hate hate hate. You're repeating yourself.

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

303. Hate consumes and destroys

sadly you are proof of that fact.

[Zuiderelle]

304. Yes, it does. And misrepresenting reason with hate also consumes...

as you evidence so plainly.

[racaulk]

297. Yep, over 4,000 views.

And, apparently, only ~60 or so agree with you...according to your logic. Yeah, that should be humbling to you, but not for the reason you're suggesting.

And I'm not surprised whatsoever that you chose to gloss over my second point.

[NJmaverick]

314. It saddens me to see so many DUers hurt and angry

I can only offer up logic and reason. I know it may not be the quickest way to deal with emotional issues and feelings, but in the long run I think it will help. I think as people's anger subsides they might notice some of the things I pointed out. That's a good feeling, knowing you potentially made a positive difference in people's lives.

[racaulk]

319. Angry? Who is angry?

Have I said something to you in this thread that is out of line? If so, please point me to it. All I have done here is disagreed with you, but that doesn't mean that I'm angry with you.

Also, condescension is not a good way to win friends or convince others that your arguments are correct.

[NJmaverick]

322. I would like to think you are not angry with me

however I am pretty sure you are angry over the Warren issue. In fact what I found fascinating was the Newsweek debate on the issue (it's linked in another DU post). It was clearly a battle of emotion vs reason.

As for you saying anything out of line, I haven't read anything. In fact I apologize if you thought I was making that accusation, as it wasn't what I was doing.

Beyond that, I don't rely (as many do) on personal popularity to get people to accept my point of view. I prefer the concept of getting people to accept your opinion because you laid out a compelling and logic argument supporting it.

[shellgame26]

497. Who gives a fuck if they're outnumbered

Is everything a pissing contest with you?

[Occulus]

499. "lifestyle" when used toward GLBT people is code for them choosing to be gay

but you already knew that.

[donheld]

209. I wish I could recommend this post a thousand times

[Zuiderelle]

210. Why, so that you could look as clueless as the OP?

[donheld]

370. Clueless my ass

Stop the drama. It's a god-damned prayer.

[sundog]

211. why?

[AlCzervik]

217. you're wrong on the first one, you don't support something if it isn't a priority

he supported prop 8.

[AntiFascist]

240. Reaching out to Warren is fine...

elevating him with an honor that gives validation to his beliefs is quite another matter. Tolerance can only go so far before we have to speak out. In the past, and the present, religion has been used to shield organized racism, so the two are not necessarilly mutually exclusive. As you say, the world is not so black and white.

[OwnedByFerrets]

242. Tolerance is considered a virtue. Why is it that progressives are

the only ones who are required to practice it?

[NJmaverick]

249. How is that?

[LatteLibertine]

255. Warren is a bigot who practices unjust discrimination

He also spreads misinformation about gay people and slanders them. Those are annoying truths as well.

I will support President Obama when he is in office, and when I disagree with him, I'll sound off. This is one of those times. I can not agree to disagree with a man like Warren. He is a poor choice I strongly oppose. He should not be legitimized by PE Obama. Appeasing people like Warren and those that adore him is going to spell trouble.

People should follow their conscience. I know I am following mine.

Just because I voted for Barack Obama does not mean I agreed to being a sheep or a puppet.

[WillParkinson]

257. Aw, isn't that special?

You think it's the truth. Suddenly that makes everything crystal clear. All our feelings mean jack to you.

1) His priorities do not have to be gay marriage or abortion. The fact that he bars gays from his "church" in print, the fact that he compares them to pederasts and people in incestuous relationships, the fact that he threw many resources into the fight for Prop 8, the fact that he goes into interviews and basically calls us immoral and unprincipled all point out why this man should not be given any form of honor at a party for the hard work that Gays & Lesbians did for Mr. Obama.

2) In my opinion that's very short-sighted. Allowing Mr. Warren to say a prayer gives him vast amounts of air-time to spew his garbage which helps to further erode the fight for gay and lesbian rights. It also has people thinking (and I'm talking on both sides of the aisle) that Mr. Obama tacitly supports or holds those same views.

3) Could Mr. Obama have pulled Mr. Warren in on a project to fight AIDS in Africa? Sure. I cannot say for sure, but I doubt many DU'ers would have a problems with that.

4) DU? Perhaps. DU'ers? Not so much.

5) I won't disagree with the collectively part.

6) I wish I had your crystal ball. Must be nice to know the future before it happens.

7) Giving Mr. Warren the opportunity to speak is a slap in the face to those who worked so hard. Gays, Lesbians, Women, and the list goes on. And I admit that not everyone will feel that way, but enough do that Mr. Obama should take notice. To blithely dismiss it as he has just adds insult to injury.

8) Their minds are made up. Playing nice with them will not change that fact. Capitulation is tantamount to admitting defeat. And the real enemy is those who spew the ignorance.

9) The only way to be united is toward a common goal. I think most people will agree that wiping out AIDS is a good and noble goal. People will not become united simply because it's "better".

10) Yes, let's sit down and be tolerant while this man campaigns against gays and lesbians on national TV because Mr. Obama has given him that opportunity.

11) My "life style"? Yeah, won't even go there. I respect people who show me at least a modicum of respect. Mr. Warren has not. Therefore I cannot respect him. Mr. Obama? I'll withhold judgment for now and see what the future holds.

12) How so? Mr. Obama is the one who wants to bring all viewpoints to the table, even those we disagree with. How is it wrong to ask why he has no problems with bringing anti-gay viewpoints to the table but not viewpoints on the races, the genders, the religions, or the nationalities?

13) From your title alone you've already lost on this one.

[NJmaverick]

284. Sorry but for me "feelings" take a back seat to all the important issues

that face our nation. That includes the issue of full and equal rights for gays. This whole worrying about feelings, is not productive, in my book.

[Zuiderelle]

285. You read one sentence and then responded. Nothing following his first sentence was about "feelings"

Why are you so combative and dismissive?

[NJmaverick]

287. It's funny, it's clear you are filled with anger and hate

the levels of which are not conducive to sound thinking or even good mental health. Yet you presume to lecture me about being "combative"? Sorry but you couldn't be further afield from the truth. In fact even your concept that the first sentence of a person's post is not the lead thought or usually the most important flies in the face of logic and reason. You really need to get a grip on yourself, take a deep breath and think (rather than react).

[Zuiderelle]

289. You are filled with insults and personal attacks. Yet you get your feelings hurt so often

that you alert on people who attack you back (in much less aggressive ways than you attack them). You took ONE WORD from the response... "feelings" and did not address one single other thing of the 12 answers he so thoughtfully wrote to you. That's dismissive.

Everything you write is combative and dismissive. You should learn to recognize it. Take a deep breath and go back and read that person's post again. The 12 responses he gave you had nothing to do with feelings. You might learn something if you would take the time to actually read.

Oh and regarding your personal attack on me about sound mental health... The irony is killing me. :rofl:

[NJmaverick]

291. Your rage has blinded you to the truth

the ONLY ones guilty of personal attacks are you and your "allies". Clearly you need a way to reduce your rage to a level that is controllable and not detrimental to you. I mean anyone that can't understand the difference between an opinion you don't like or agree with and a insult has lost touch with reason and reality. I am not sure how much assistance I can offer you, but I will give you this.

:hug:


and I will suggest you look at how many recs and how many strong positive relies these ideas received. Then just take a deep breath, relax and let the brain function free of the negative emotions that cloud your thinking process.

[WillParkinson]

293. How many of these "strong positive" replies...

Have come from people unaffected by Mr. Warren?

And you don't find "Then just take a deep breath, relax and let the brain function free of the negative emotions that cloud your thinking process." to be a personal attack? Yes, it's nicely worded, but it's still an attack.

Telling us that we need to "reduce our rage" is rude as well. You have little idea why we feel rage. It's all about what "you" think we should believe without knowing why we believe it to be so.

Oh, and by the way, I understand your opinions. I give them the merit I believe they deserve and then weigh them against the "truth" that we see and find them sorely lacking.

[Zuiderelle]

294. You calling my reasonable responses "rage" belies your true intentions with this thread.

It doesn't matter how much positive reinforcement ignorance gets, it doesn't make it not ignorant.

Breathe. It would be good for you. Projecting is a dangerous thing.

[racaulk]

298. That's the same tactic as labeling someone as a "hater."

Oh, you're just a "Hillary hater" or an "Obama hater."

The intention is to stifle dissent and opposing viewpoints.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

305. You see post #43 yet? I'm waiting.

[Solon]

259. Yes, how dare we call those who believe Black people carry the mark of Cain racist.

After all, its a religious belief. :eyes:

[jpgray]

299. I won't attack you. Just your mumbling, milk-blooded, barren-brained and bland-faced arguments.

1) Warren's priorities are not opposing gay marriage (or abortion, the forgotten view), rather it's poverty, Aids and global warming. In other words he was not a leader or the strongest advocate for prop 8.

Just because he never had "yes on prop 8!" tattooed on his forehead doesn't mean his bigotry is excusable. His work on AIDS, including his support of an African pastor who "faith-heals" people from AIDS and demonizes prophylactics, sucks. His work on the environment is bandwagon-jumping and posturing at its worst. It's fine to seek help from him on these issues, but not at the cost of honoring and promoting a man who deserves neither honor nor promotion.

2) Allowing Warren to say a prayer does not take away a single person's civil right, nor does it change Obama's positions or the Government's positions or policies on gay rights.

Promoting and honoring Warren allows him more power to do exactly that. It gains him influence and attention to preach his hateful message on Jews, gays, women, etc. With this influence and sanction from Obama, he has more power to have impact on Obama and the national debate at large. Again, this is why talking with Warren is fine while providing him with a major honor is not.

3) Reaching out and trying to find common ground means you are going to be reaching out for people you DON'T agree with. It's not reaching out if you only surround yourself with people who agree with you.

Yes, change occurs by reaching out to the established, conservative position that is already glutted with money, power and influence, to provide them with yet more influence. :eyes: Do you even hear yourself? Every day of their lives people are beat over the head with ignorant, derisive views of gay marriage like those professed by Rick Warren. He doesn't need or deserve any extra prominence. Gay rights advocates, however, need both. Why do you suppose FDR picked someone like John A Ryan for his 1937 invocation?

4) DU is not and never has been anything but supportive of the GBLT community

In an anemic, selfish way, sure. In a way that offers milk-safe dislike mixed with cordial respect for their bitter enemies and other hateful bigots. Lip-service has been offered in plenty, as well as many exhortations to "calm down" and "think about this rationally." If you call that supportive, I hope you aren't in a relationship.

5) DU has not collectively (there may be isolated incidents out of frustration) told the GBLT community to "STFU". They have spoken out when people have posted views and positions they don't agree with.

This gets confusing on DU, as both sides of a debate like to accuse the other of trying to stifle honest discussion. Fact is, the GLBT have a right to be pissed off about this, and a little respect and understanding for that anger would be better than a long, nannying explanation of why they shouldn't react so strongly, no?

6) When Obama enters the White House he will become the strongest advocate for gay rights, the White House has ever seen.

So he might be marginally better than Clinton? Hooray. Would it be wrong to hope and ask for more than an infinitesimal difference?

7) We won the election. Giving Warren a chance to say a prayer is a noble gesture, not defeat.

It's a cowardly gesture. It legitimizes an ignorant, bigoted point of view when there is no reason to do so. It tells fundamentalists and religious conservatives that, despite their inveterate hatred for all progressives, even a Democratic president must bow to their clout. It's hideous. It's an abomination. How is providing a huge platform to a guy who already has a massive platform noble? What about the voices in support of GLBT rights that have almost no voice in the establishment at all? Might providing them with this honor be a nobler gesture? Or is it only noble when honors are given to those who reject one's own ideals?

8) The real enemy is the ignorance and intolerance that allowed prop 8 and other equally abhorrent laws to pass. Attacking the ignorant has never proven to be an effective path to enlightenment, it only causes them to close their minds and dig in their heals.

Warren is both ignorant and intolerant. He has actively increased both ignorance and intolerance. You disagree with attacking him, which is at least understandable, but am I to presume you agree with -honoring- him for such views?

9) The vast majority of knowledgeable people believe that a nation functions best when united, rather than divided.

When the division exists because one side is totally wrong, that's not the case at all. What sort of united compromise is possible between those who see a group of people as humans and those who do not? What unity between those who disagreed on slavery or women's suffrage, for example, would you have forged in place of the rather one-sided results of those debates?

10) Tolerance is considered a virtue. It's a virtue for everyone including liberals, conservatives, religious and non-religious.

This is the most empty-headed faux liberal truism on the planet. Shall we tolerate female genital mutilation from immigrants, for example? What about honor killings? When tolerance is set against human rights, human rights need to fucking win. If you don't agree, you're not a progressive.

11) It's better to give respect, when asking for respect. In other words not respecting a person's religious views, is a bad start when telling them that they in turn should respect you and your civil rights and life style. Respect begets respect.

Respect is fine. Honors are not. Promoting and praising people who hold evil views is not a necessary part of respecting them. Indeed, it is never necessary.

12) Comparing a person's religious beliefs with organized racists, is as offensive and wrong as comparing gay marriage to incest or polygamy.

Look no further than Warren for ridiculous comparisons. He's a huge fan of Nazi analogies, such as likening abortion to the Holocaust. It's ironic that Jews, communists and gays were major victims of the Holocaust, since Warren believes all of the above are going to Hell. He remains, however, inordinately fond of the Holocaust metaphor. Incidentally your comparing those two arguments is far more stupid than comparing one battle for equal rights to another.

13) The world is not black and white, rather it's many shades of gray. The "either you are with me or against me" mentality is simply misguided and wrong. People are more complex than a single issue or position.

In many cases this is true, however, human rights don't allow for shades of gray. GLBT folks are either human, or less than human. There is no gray area there--if they are second class citizens in any respect, guess what? They are no longer provided with the rights inherent to every human being, and are thus dehumanized. Which of your own rights would you freely give up, should some of us disagree with your having them? Would you see the gray areas? The noble compromise? The sweet snow-pure unity we could forge? My guess is, you wouldn't.

[sundog]

300. :)

nicely done sir

[PeaceNikki]

301. Beautifully put!

Thank you.

:toast:

[Zuiderelle]

306. What an astoundingly good post!

:patriot:

Thank you. :loveya:

[enigmatic]

308. you got it

excellent as always:thumbsup:

[WillParkinson]

311. Nothing to add but a simple....

WOOT.

[Bjorn Against]

315. I wish I could recommend your post.

Great job.

[Magrittes Pipe]

317. I wish I could recommend your reply.

Bravo as always, jpgray.

[Starry Messenger]

321. Wonderful.

I'm glad I reopened this thread, now. I wish I could rec this reply.

[PeaceNikki]

326. Note the OP avoiding it.

[Starry Messenger]

329. It's highly entertaining. n/t

[Skittles]

349. pretty sad so many DUers fail to understand the REAL truths

so fucking many :puke:

[uponit7771]

350. So what do we do now? I'll go as far as contributing to the ACLU seperating the state for definition

...of something that should be left up to the church.

[Daemonaquila]

361. Too bad this response can't be K&R'd.

:yourock:

[NJmaverick]

395. What I see in this post is a reason vs emotion battle

The truths stand, you may not like them. You may try to spin them, but they still stand.

[PeaceNikki]

404. Yes, jpgray's post is reason, yours emotion

:toast: to agreement!!

[Raster]

411. Wow! I've said before and say again: jpgray your posts are always worth reading.

I may not agree with everything you post, but I do appreciate the thought you put in your posts and I respect your views. This post is one that I wholeheartedly recommend. Thank you for posting.

We Can Do Better!:kick:STOP the H8!

[bluedawg12]

416. This is brilliant and much needed. Thanks for the hard work!!

Great rebuttal.

[dbackjon]

441. Very well stated

[sniffa]

447. Thanks for this

:thumbsup:

[bettyellen]

492. damn JP ! wish we could carry you round on our shoulders, fella!

[BR_Parkway]

500. We should be able to recommend sub-threads like this - outstanding

job, and thank you.

[bvar22]

302. After the last week, I'm not surprised that 65 DUers...

....support this twisted rationalization for tolerating the intolerable.

This is NOT a "GBLT" Issue.
This is an American Issue.
Civil Rights and Equal Protection for ALL....no exceptions.

[boppers]

307. Failed out of the gate, on #1).

Sad, really.

[Zenlitened]

312. Griefer - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

A griefer is a player who plays a game simply to aggravate and harass other players

History

The term was applied to online, multiplayer computer games by at least the year 2000 as illustrated by postings to the rec.games.computer.ultima.online USENET group.<2>

Overview

Griefers differ from typical players in that they do not play the game in order to achieve objectives defined by the game world. Instead, they seek to harass other players, causing grief. In particular, they may use tools such as stalking, hurling insults, and exploiting unintended game mechanics. Griefing as a gaming play style is not simply any action that may be considered morally incorrect. Though the staff of each online game defines griefing in a manner that best fits their game, certain criteria must be met for an action to be considered griefing. An act of griefing involves the following three types of actions to be considered grief play:<3>

* The use or abuse of a game mechanic that was not intended by the game's developers.

* The inability of the victim to exact some means of retribution beyond utilizing similar unintended game mechanics.

* The intended purpose of an act of griefing must be to negatively impact the gameplay of another person.

An act of griefing usually meets all these criteria as well as any game specific criteria set by the developers of the game.<4>

Generally, for griefing to have occurred, the player in question must meet several, if not all, of the criteria listed above. More open definitions of the term suggest that the curbing of enjoyment in any way to be a form of griefing, whether it meets any of the listed criteria or not. These players will often consider the following actions to constitute griefing: kill stealing, player killing, spamming, team killing (or team wounding), teamflashing, door or path blocking, ninja looting, spawn camping, and corpse camping. These actions often meet one of the criteria but may fail to meet others.

Griefing shares much in common with laming, another term in online gaming, though the former tends to have stronger connotations. Although laming is less well-defined, fulfillment of the first criterion is often enough to classify an act as laming, thus, many of the above listed actions, while not accurately considered griefing, may legitimately fall under the category of laming. Though the two terms are very similar, griefing is typically more specific, particularly in regard to the second and especially the third criteria.

It is important to note that griefing methods differ from game to game depending on that game's mechanics. Changes and upgrades can sometimes prevent or lessen some acts of griefing, though the large player community of such games can sometimes find a way around it.

Usage

Griefer is the noun form used by victims to refer to the player causing grief using the previously mentioned methods.<5>

It is important to remember that the term griefer does not refer to any player that causes grief to others. Rather, it refers to a player whose only objective in the game is to cause grief, and who cannot thus be deterred by penalties related to in-game goals, because they have no in-game goals other than to cause grief.

To grief is the infinitive form. It appears to be ambitransitive; however, no linguistic research has been done on usage variations to date.

Examples

In MMORPGs that do not allow any player versus player combat, the act of attacking another player is prohibited. "Monster Player Killing" is a method of griefing where monsters (mobs) are manipulated to attack other players. The player character of the griefer first provokes monsters into attacking his/her own character, then lures the mobs to an area populated by many other players. The griefer then utilizes some technique, such as leaving the area, to lose interest of the mobs. The mobs then attack the other players in the vicinity. (This example might not be considered griefing in some contexts, such as in a player versus player environment.) Another example of griefing in an MMORPG would be killing non-player characters, particularly those crucial to questing, vendoring or transportation. This directly disrupts the game play of nearby player characters, who are left with the task of either waiting for the slain characters to respawn, or attempting to kill the offending player(s) if the game allows for PvP combat. More often than not, the offending player is counting on this, so that he may kill other player characters in "self-defense".

In the online multiplayer game Tibia, it was possible to lure extremely strong monsters called Giant Spiders towards nearby players. Most players under level 50 would struggle fighting it and any below level 30 are usually killed instantly. Eventually they managed to put bridges in certain sections of the game to restrict luring. Lately, luring happens a lot less, because if a monster is lured over a certain distance, it automatically disappears, taking any possible loot along with it. Luring is often used to kill the characters belonging to newbies who cannot defeat/escape from strong monsters. It is still being used, albeit at a much lesser scale than before.

In Halo 2 and Halo 3 multiplayer, a group calling themselves HLG (Hidden League Gaming) would deploy a tactic in which they, upon getting the lead, hide from the opposing team with sometimes elaborate means until time runs out, making it very difficult for the other team to come back and win the match. Since this tactic is by no means illegal (unethical, maybe) little has been done by the games' developers, Bungie, to stop it. In Bungie's Auto-Update 2, areas that could be reached through illegal means (such as grenade jumping, brute-shot jumping, and jumping out of the map) were blocked in online play with invisible walls. Map examples include the conveyor belt on Narrows, the ledge above the overshield spawn on Guardian, and the outside edge of yellow 2 on Construct.

Also in Halo 3 a type of griefing has emerged from a system put into place to boot team killers. Where after a number of betrayals it allows the victim to choose if they would forgive the offender or boot him from the game. However it helps solve one problem while at the same time creates another. Now people would actually 'bait' their team mates into killing them by employing various forms of harassment. Then would get his victims kicked or 'booted' at the cost of his teammate's frustration and often at the expense of a once possible win. This also results in the player losing experience as being booted for betrayal often results in loss of experience, thus causing them to be demoted after gaining a rank.

The online multiplayer version of Diablo 2, demonstrated many types of griefing methods. Players begging for items would sometimes wait in the town locations for another player to enter the game, wait for that player to move over to a cornered area, and maneuver their own character next to the player, block him, and demand free items to move. Before patching, some in game exploits became so intolerable that players would lose all trust in certain player classes. Some classes had spells that could damage enemies over time with a single cast in a wide area of effect. In the heat of a battle, some griefers in a party would start casting these spells, quickly use an item that allowed them to return to the town, and declare hostility on their own party. The party, still battling, would now take damage from the griefer's spell and likely sustain heavy losses. Other griefers would utilize hacks and third party programs to cheat by killing players in neutral areas, falsifying item trades, duplicating items to trade for legitimate items (the duplicates would soon disappear) and forcing players to disconnect.

In some games where players choose to roleplay, griefers will sometimes attempt to disrupt or undermine ongoing roleplay by standing among the roleplayers and intentionally talking "out of character", shouting profanity or nonsense unrelated to the roleplay or game, hitting players with unwanted buffs (sometimes referred to as "drive by buffing"), or using powers or game mechanics to annoy, push or generally obstruct roleplayers. Some games have dedicated roleplay servers where such behavior can be prevented, but for games with no roleplay server there is usually no way to avoid this type of griefing unless the victim(s) leave, hide or simply move away from the griefer(s).

Another example is the practice of "crashing" in multiplayer racing games, such as Live for Speed. A crasher will often wait at a certain point at a track, ram other players that are in slower cars or braking, or drive in the wrong direction, attempting to collide with another player head-on, among other acts. Crashing is almost always frowned upon, as it disrupts the race of players who are attempting to run a clean race. There is often the option of kicking or banning the offending player, but sometimes such options are not available. Occasionally, rule-abiding players will have had enough, and collectively attack the offending player. Sometimes, servers of certain games will run third-party software which kicks crashers on the basis of movements unusual in a race, but sometimes, as in Live for Speed, the software works to the advantage of the crasher, as the attacked player will trip the software and be kicked, while the crasher will remain.

In online games such as Second Life that allow the scripting of objects, griefing is very common from established groups such as the Patriotic Nigras, who use such scripted objects to harass and lag users, as well as build special self-replicating objects designed to overload a server and take down regions of the game. However simply instigating drama with content deemed 'broadly offensive' or 'harassing' by other players, or the dreaded Governance or "G-team" is deemed to be griefing (the definition of 'broadly offensive' is frequently derided by civil libertarians as offensively broad).<6>

Another example is the practice of intentionally cause a multiplayer game server to crash. For example, in the online multiplayer first person shooter game Battlefield 2142, players who had been designated as commanders and given the ability to command and move Titans ("gigantic flying battleships" which serve as mobile bases) would intentionally crash their Titan into that of another Titan which often crashed the server. This is still a regular occurrence within the game.

Another example of griefing is in Team Fortress 2 where many features of the game can be used against the griefer's own team. Team Roomba has made two very popular Youtube videos of their griefing. Some of these examples are such as a Pyro blocking a sniper's view with his flamethrower, teleporting their teammates to spots where they get immediately killed, blocking the spawn doorways, and Ubering a Sniper, Spy or another class that does not need this.

Another example is that of myg0t. This group is an online gaming organization and website dedicated to "raging" which in principle is very similar to griefing. They use many methods, mainly in FPS (First Person Shooter) games, in order to annoy and spoil the game for others, doing such things as blocking doorways, repeatedly team killing, and using game exploits and hacks in order to annoy others.

The practice of griefing has been the theme of a South Park episode.

Social aspects of griefing

While clear examples of griefing exist, much of the difference between griefing and non-griefing activities depends on individual player's understanding of the social norms of the in-game world. Activities one player considers griefing may be understood by another to be part of normal gameplay. While certain behaviors are generally recognized by the majority of players in a game as griefing, the ultimate classification of any single act as griefing rests on the intent of the perpetrator. Griefing may not occur if the perpetrator's intent is not to negatively impact the victims game play or if the victim is capable of exacting retribution at the present or in the future. The perpetrator must have an advantage that was not intended by the developers of the game to exist.

A number of gaming groups are believed to exist for the sole purpose of griefing (for instance the aforementioned myg0t).<7> Again, the classification of these groups as griefing groups is subject to individual analysis and the required criterion for actions that can be considered griefing. In some cases the perpetrator may claim to be a griefer but be acting in a completely developer intended manner. The perpetrator's intent may be to grief but if the victim has a clear means of reprisal that was intended by the developers of the game, the offensive acts are not griefing but merely a means of playing the game.

Combating griefers

Many subscription-based games have taken steps to combat griefers as they reduce the amount of enjoyment non-griefers take in the game and thus drive away business.<8> However, the opportunity to grief is present in the functional requirements of multiplayer games in general (spamming is an unavoidable given non-restrictive player to player communication). Also, some griefing activities are easier to curtail than others. While spamming can be prevented with an ignore function, preventing the use of exploits in the FPS genre requires altering game balance issues. This is not impossible, but would remove the strategy aspect of some team-based first-person shooters. Also, since all griefing involves manipulating exploits, only by eliminating all of them can programmers remove those opportunities from Player Versus Player oriented games and Non-Player Versus Player oriented games. Given the scope and complexity of most multiplayer games, preventing griefing in Non-Player Versus Player games can be next to impossible.

In light of this, most games allow either for server admins to reprimand offenders (up to and including banning certain IP address from logging onto a local server) or, as in the case of MMORPGs with persistent worlds, have a reporting process by which the activities of certain players can be brought to the attention of Game Masters. The GMs or Customer Service Representatives then decide on any disciplinary action (if appropriate). By some accounts, as many as 25% of customer support calls to companies operating online games deal specifically with griefing.<9> But in some MMOs griefing is reportable only as an abuse or exploitation of unintended game mechanics, which is frustrating to the victim of such acts as the griefer may not be dealt with as the report will go directly to the developers to fix the abused code.

Several games practically eliminate the major forms of grief in online games by having separate instances for areas between towns and outposts, meaning no one except the player and their party can be found in that area. This means that many aspects of griefing are impossible and a griefer could only grief another player by gaining entry into the party.

Sometimes the playerbase themselves rise up to combat the griefers as demonstrated within Second Life. There are many established groups and organizations dedicated to fighting groups like the Patriotic Nigras.

See also

* Video game addiction
* Troll (Internet)
* myg0t

[NJmaverick]

313. Wow talk about trying to hijack a thread with some totally inane and unrelated topic

or is this your way of telling us something about yourself? Still it would have been better if you started your own topic.

[Bjorn Against]

316. Annoying, yes. Truths not so much.

Read post #299 if you want to read some truths.

[ooglymoogly]

318. Oh look another "I just don't get it" op. You should have called your post annoying little

truthyness.....Its not his tipsy top most important priority...so it really doesn't count.

Elevating this bigot to the top of the maypole on religion really does not matter cus he is only saying a prayer while appearing before billions of people all over the world as the most respected religious leader in the land.

His bigotry is only secondary so we should all just get a grip.

Lets all forget that he in fact worked tirelessly and loudly and raised money for the passage of H8 though its easy to say its not his top priority. His cover er top priority is doing good works.

So lets all just be good churmans....can't we just all get along?

This op is clueless or worse and so are many of the 'wrecking' posters. This is not juust about Gay marriage or even for that matter in the big picture about gays; It is about human rights, the constitution and what is right and common decency.

[rcsl1998]

323. It's AIDS, Not Aids

You lost me on item #1 of your Warren Spin...

[girl_interrupted]

325. Truth: It's one thing to "associate" another to "honor"

Our elected officals often associate, debate, disagree and try to come to common terms with other elected officals of different ideologies and even those who are not elected, but may represent opposing views. But to "honor" one who's views you say you vehmently oppose, is quite another. And make no mistake, it is an honor to be invited to speak at an Inauguration.


I try to get past Warren's hateful rhetoric toward gays, women & Jews, but it is extremely difficult. I'm sure even Hitler had some good intentions, but hey, he was still a scumbag & so is Warren. Nuff said.

[ooglymoogly]

328. nice post

welcome

[girl_interrupted]

330. TY!

[ZombieHorde]

327. Hi nomad1776!

1) Those are fantastic things to support, but the issue was the legitimizing of Warren's views.

2) Again, legitimizing his views.

3) What if Warren was a outspoken member of the KKK? Would you feel the same?

4) Gay slurs have been used as insults, such as calling Rush gay; but you are mostly right.

5) There has also been 'go chill out' posts, with alternate wording.

6) I hope so, but we will have to see.

7) This noble gesture is mostly at the expense of Gays and Jews.

8) Not having Warren give the prayer is not an attack. (wow, what an awkward sentence on my end)

9) Do you have any evidence for this claim? Were you advocating this the last eight years?

10) See #3, Being tolerant and giving a prestigious platform are two separate things.

11) True, but this is too much. If Bush had a liberal at his inauguration, would you feel any different concerning his policies? I wouldn't.

12) Some churches are organized racists, such as the Church of Creativity; but you are right about many churches.

13) Warren is not just, 'not with Gays', he is openly against them.

For ease of reply, I will list the points that are questions: #3, #9 is two questions, and #11.

Peacefully yours,
Zombie Bloodbath Horde

[NJmaverick]

340. Thank you for your thoughtful answer

TO answer your question I think number 11 might have had me more willing to advocate number 9. Still there were times where I was unified, like after 9/11. That faded as the king fool decided to exploit that terrible event so he could invade a country just to kill the man that tried to kill his daddy.


As to the answer for number 3, see number 12. Finally to be clear I think I would have been more willing to give Bush a chance if he had reached out to us as Obama has done. Finally I don't have evidence for number 9, but I think it falls under the self evident catagory.

[KG]

331. hmm..one of the bigger steaming piles i've read one DU.

well. i guess there's something to be said for being able to stack it that high.

[Starry Messenger]

333. We call it...

"The Aristocrats!"

[PeaceNikki]

337. Niiice!

:thumbsup:

[Patchuli]

334. As a leftwing, liberal Christian I say: Amen!!!

K&R!!!! :kick: :kick: :kick:

I too, am really unhappy with what Rick Warren has said and I was unhappy with the fact that I believe he "helped" McCain but I don't think for a second that his saying the inaugural prayer will dictate the White House policies. I wish Rick Warren would publicly admit that what he said about gays was wrong because it is.

[NJmaverick]

338. It seems Warren is starting to take baby steps toward the light

He has taken down the gays can't be members of our church message on his website, and he admitted to regrets to Melissa Etheridge. So it would seem there has already been some positive results from all of this.

[dflprincess]

364. Scrubbing his website because it's getting more hits is hardly a sign

he's "taking baby steps toward the light". He's taken down his more extreme views to avoid turning people off. If he had any real regrets, he would have posted them.

I'd put this action right up there with the 18 minute gap in the Watergate tapes.

[Gorobei]

423. Was anybody listening during the campaign?

This is what Obama was talking about. Hard work, reaching out to those who he disagrees with. This is what it's about. This is no different from keeping an open mind to talking to Iran. You don't solve problems the Bush way by saying you're with me or against me and if you're against me you need to go sit in that corner for the next 4 years.

You stimulate discussion and debate. The very choice and the kerfuffle it has created has already been beneficial. More people are talking about Gay rights. More people are having their ideas challenged and some of them are having their minds changed.

You cannot simply tell Rick Warren or any of his flock "You are a bigot, now change immediately" and expect it to happen. The harder you push, them more a person will close their mind.

Liking or disliking Warren or his ideas is not what matters here. Exposing him, exposing those ideas and getting Americans to really think about what is going on and stop the name calling and ideological fortress building is what matters.

This is exactly why Obama is so impressive. He's done this sort of thing before and he'll do it again. And it's what we need.

[bluedawg12]

436. Exactly because Rick Warren hasn't repudiated his own hate speech

is why he doesn't belong at the inaugural.

[Solon]

335. Your number 12 is perhaps one of the most stupid things I've ever read here. n/t

[iconicgnom]

339. In order:

1. Sophistic job of pick-n-choosing there.
2. The honor given Warren didn't include any such pick-n-choosing. Certainly not yours.
3. Giving Warren a headline honor isn't "reaching out". It's a performative statement. Do look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_utterance
4. This has nothing to do with what DU is, has been, or will be.
5. This has nothing to do with what DU has, has not, or might, collectively say.
6. This speculation is contradicted by the honor given Warren. In fact, it's the farkin issue.
7. la di da. If that's the criterion, there are certainly worse choices than Warren, so why not them?
8. correct. But "attacking the ignorant" isn't the contrary of "honoring a bigot".
9. So a nation should unite with racists, with... well... anything?
10. Personally, I consider myself "tolerant" of bigots, but I don't agree with honoring and promoting them. There's a difference.
11. I don't respect the view of someone who, like Warren, claims to speak for all religions, all faiths, for all time, on this particular issue. Why should I respect a view that is, in fact, insane?
12. So you agree that Warren is out to lunch and shouldn't be given this honor? Or what?
13. Actually, the world is colored. But one thing is clear, Warren is a bigot. And not even one of your points make a lick of sense. I can't even say "good try".

[MadMaddie]

341. nomad1776 nicely said!

K & R!

[1776Forever]

342. It isn't the prayer it is the influence he wants out of it - Some people don't get it.

This man is a "nation-builder" - his own Purpose-Driven Nation. What he is selling and in some cases sold to the influential in Government is the fact that he is only interested in helping those in need. Really? And how does he get there?

Please read this:

Untold Consequences: Rick Warren's AIDS Activism
Kathryn Joyce on December 19, 2008

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/12/19/untold-consequences-rick-warrens-aids-activism

[Still Sensible]

343. A Different Point of View

Here is a different take on the question from Bob Ostertag on HuffPo...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/why-gay-marriage-is-the-w_b_152717.html

[Zuiderelle]

348. He's entitled to his views like everyone else. He doesn't want to marry. Good then he doesn't have

to. But not having the option is the issue. The only reason I want to marry is to protect my family. If I die, my spouse's health insurance will be lost, if I die, she will not get my social security, if I die she will not get my pension benefits, just a taxable lump sum. If I die she runs the risk of having to fight for her inheritance from me, and even for what we own jointly. It's easy for someone who doesn't want to marry, who doesn't care about marriage, to say that fighting for gay marriage is stupid.

What I think is stupid is selling out the rest of us who do care.

[K Gardner]

344. K&R . Well said truths.

[1776Forever]

347. I can see now why the GLBT member feels the way they do about this issue.

When so many people go along with a compromise about a man who is openly hateful and deceitful who has said things that no other minority in the country would be accepted as being OK to say but those who think it is OK for them to be said about the GLBT community.

When Warren's proteges in Africa have hate filled and dangerous hunts for African gays, and when no one who is GLBT can join his church, then how in the Hell can you say with your writings and so many members agree with you that it is OK!

I have given 2 examples today of posts with references from Time Magazine and another reportable source about Warren's Nation-Building dreams for the P.E.A.C.E. Plan that has all ready been sold whole or parts of to Bush, Hillary, Obama, Bono and how many others is unknown. This is just not the kind of community I want to be a part of if all we can do is play yes-men. I think President-elect Obama would want us to question this action. Isn't that what he said. That he didn't want yes-men (people) at his table?

[iconicgnom]

358. Yes, I too can see why any reasonable human being would be totally pissed, by this.

By the absolutely sickening "k & r's" to posts that make no sense except to promote out and out bigotry against, lets face it, a minority that has no defense.

Let's face it, Warren is the face of anti-LGBT bigotry today. There can be no denying that, in spite of his "water and doughnuts".

Because he is the face of anti-LGBT bigotry today, because he chose that role for himself, I feel comfortable slamming the man, and slamming Obama's choice. I feel very uncomfortable trying to defend Warren, trying to defend Obama's choice. The difference, to me, is one of fundamental values.

[flvegan]

351. Shut up and get out of the way.

Cram Warren and his bigotry. I will not suffer apologists gladly.

[leftstreet]

353. Obama had so much political capital he could announce he was gay on Jan 20

...and no one would mind.

He is pissing his capital away, and he isn't even in office yet.

It makes no sense.

:shrug:

[AntiFascist]

430. Warren is being touted by the media as "America's Next Pastor"

it makes sense if you understand the evangelical power play.

[Daemonaquila]

355. You mean those "annoying little HALF-truths?"

1) Warren's priorities are not opposing gay marriage (or abortion, the forgotten view), rather it's poverty, Aids and global warming. In other words he was not a leader or the strongest advocate for prop 8.

So what that he wasn't the STRONGEST advocate against gay rights? Putting it in the language of race, which some people seem to have an easier time with, would it be ok to showcase a racist who's advocating against interracial marriage and for segregation, as long as he wasn't a KKK supporter?

3) Reaching out and trying to find common ground means you are going to be reaching out for people you DON'T agree with. It's not reaching out if you only surround yourself with people who agree with you.

Finding common ground doesn't require showcasing someone who is advocating against the human rights of a large percentage of the population. Reaching out can take many forms that don't effectively glorify such a person.

6) When Obama enters the White House he will become the strongest advocate for gay rights, the White House has ever seen.

That is yet to be seen.

7) We won the election. Giving Warren a chance to say a prayer is a noble gesture, not defeat.

We won WWII. Should we also have given Axis dictators a chance to speak as a "noble gesture?"

8) The real enemy is the ignorance and intolerance that allowed prop 8 and other equally abhorrent laws to pass. Attacking the ignorant has never proven to be an effective path to enlightenment, it only causes them to close their minds and dig in their heals.

Neither has glorifying the ignorant. Sorry, there are real enemies - people like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Rick Warren, to name a few - who support evil ideas and promote evil causes from a position of power. You have to stop those people and their program in their tracks.

9) The vast majority of knowledgeable people believe that a nation functions best when united, rather than divided.

False. History is full of nations that were united, whether through fear, desperation, or sheer bloody-mindedness, that functioned like crap, did nasty things to others, and bore the consequences. The first thing a person has to do when someone pulls out that stupid old saw, "United we stand!" is to ask, "United FOR WHAT?" If that answer is not satisfactory, screw being united.

10) Tolerance is considered a virtue. It's a virtue for everyone including liberals, conservatives, religious and non-religious.

Great. Then let Rick Warren show his tolerance toward homosexuals and women. Tolerance of racism, sexism, and homophobia is not a virtue, by the way. It's cowardly at best.

11) It's better to give respect, when asking for respect. In other words not respecting a person's religious views, is a bad start when telling them that they in turn should respect you and your civil rights and life style. Respect begets respect.

There are some issues that are black and white. The expectation of equal rights for all is one of those. If religious views can't handle that, they aren't worth respecting. You don't have to condemn the bigots and chase them to the ends of the earth, but you sure don't have to glorify the bigots versus tolerating them cluttering up your planet.

12) Comparing a person's religious beliefs with organized racists, is as offensive and wrong as comparing gay marriage to incest or polygamy.

Oh, hell no. If a religion or its leader preaches racism, that religion/sect is racist. If a religion or its leader preaches homophobia, that religion/sect is homophobic. The racism / homophobia comparisons are completely fair. During the civil rights struggles, blacks were subjected to exactly the same hate speech and "peacemakers" used exactly the same apologetic language as we're seeing used today regarding the struggle for gay rights. If it's offensive so be it - if the shoe fits, too bad if the wearer doesn't like it.

[iconicgnom]

362. wow.

[Fearless]

369. We won the Civil War and allowed Southerners back into the Union...

Albeit Andrew Johnson was a royal prick about it, but we did nonetheless. It was Lincoln who wanted that. Go figure.

[Usrename]

372. Nice response.

This whole argument that provides religious cover for outright bigotry is awful, and should frighten folks. It never ends well.

[meegbear]

383. Excellent response!

Thanks for the rebuttal :thumbsup:.

[Cherchez la Femme]

359. Jebus Kee-Rist

This POS thread, full of opinions NOT "truths" got EIGHTY SEVEN rec's?! :wow:

[georgecolombo]

363. Dead On

Well reasoned, well written. I agree with every point you make.

[Fearless]

368. I'm glad someone said it.

[jonnyblitz]

373. the phobes sure loved this thread.

:puke:

[Sherman A1]

375. Agreed and Well Said.

[BobTheSubgenius]

376. Clearly, I don't have the history and experience on DU.....

.....that virtually every other poster in this thread has, but I've read many times more threads than I've posted in.

Anyway. In my (thus qualified) time at DU, this is the worst experience I've had, in that this is the most divisive thread I can remember. There were LOTS of heated words during the nomination campaign, but I had a strong feeling that the vast majority of that rancor was from fierce loyalty to their candidate.....and that most people would drop it and work for the common good once the candidate was named.....and if not then, shortly after. CERTAINLY by now. Maybe all that is over for good.

This, I find heart-breaking and almost shocking. I can't believe there is this kind of divide on such a deep level, on such a core issue. It's incomprehensible to me that the reasons for opposition to Rick Warren - RICK WARREN! - in this context can't be at least glimpsed through the eyes of those opposing.

You could change a few words in the OP to suit, then substitute any number of names for RW's. David Duke? Wouldn't it be ultimately inclusive to invite him to participate? Michael Weiner? How vile a person do you have to have to name before they are finally beyond the pale?

The fact that he slaps a micron-thick veneer of 'religion' on top of his bigotry probably makes it worse, not better.

[insanity]

377. Word!

[Swamp Rat]

380. "Hohoho!! ... Daa chuba tinka!!"

"Uba lonta stupa monku mind trick... mmMMMmm......

[HamdenRice]

384. Despite the noise, This reached the top of the Greatest! Silent majority of grownups speaks!

Grown up GLBT and straight people together!

[YOY]

386. Sorry Nomad. I quite disagree with you.

The guy should not be at the inauguration. The "religious right" cannot and will not be won over. "Fiscal conservatives" however...

Honestly man, don't stick up for Warren...even in Obama's name. He's not worth it.

[PeaceNikki]

387. Hey, nomad... you should read this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8023237#8025164

Though I think you have and that you're just avoiding it.

[PeaceNikki]

388. Well... didja?

[NJmaverick]

394. Yes I read it and it reminded me of this old adage:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

[PeaceNikki]

403. You're right. On this we agree. Your OP is opinion, not fact.

:toast: to agreement.

[NMDemDist2]

389. #7 isn't 'truth' it's pandering

having a dialog with Warren is one thing, giving him an extremely high profile stage at the Inauguration isn't a 'noble gesture' at all. It's condoning hate speech.

and that's the 'truth'

[DailyGrind51]

390. Thank you very much!

We just went through 8 years of "my way or the highway" politics, do we really want to become the mirror image of what we fought so hard to defeat?

[happylib]

391. I agree with the article and gays are

just bitter about Prop 8 and directing there anger at this guy.

[Hellataz]

392. K&R, Excellent Post!

No one should begrudge the GBLT community their feelings in this matter, but I do believe that this issue, as many often do, is hitting too close for some to look at rationally. This post is a rational and intelligent way of looking at how we should be dealing with issues we disagree with. I cannot say I have personal acted as civil as this OP suggests we should. I admit to letting the ignorant rile me up, but at my core I truly believe in the ideas and opinions presented in the OP, and wish others could as well.

[Captain Hilts]

393. You must not be among the groups he's condemned to hell or equated your sex practices with pedophili

pedophilia and bestiality.

[Raster]

396. Better title for this OP: Those annoying little half-truths, opinions and innuendo.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

402. brilliant. nt

[woo me with science]

397. Excellent, excellent post. nt

[leftofthedial]

398. annoying half truths

[redqueen]

405. I wish I hadn't read this thread.

Not that I read much... but it was too much, regardless.

*sigh*

[Jester Messiah]

408. Excellent post!!

[D23MIURG23]

415. "Comparing a person's religious beliefs with organized racists,is as offensive and wrong..."

:rofl:




Hate is hate. Organized delusion doesn't excuse it.

[DailyGrind51]

427. So, hating Christians is fine, then?

Bigotry is bigotry, whether its targets are gays, blacks, Muslims, Jews, or Christians.

[EFerrari]

429. What is "Christian" about dehumanizing other people?

I think you got your category wrong. And, there are plenty of people who justify their bigotry with Scripture. That doesn't mean they are acting as Christians, does it?

[DailyGrind51]

462. There are Christians and there are "Christians", does a lable define an individual?

Or, does the mere word invite animosity? There are also plenty of people who justify their bigotry with "political correctness".

[EFerrari]

501. When was the last time that millions of Americans were denied civil rights

under the rubric of "political correctness"?

[bluedawg12]

434. Love the sinner hate the sin. We Christians have been wrong.

Especially when Christianity is diverted to serve right wing social politics.

[D23MIURG23]

503. Religion is a choice, and labeling stupid and intolerant ideas "religion" doesn't give them merit.

If I told you that I knew of a group who's "religion" involved worshiping Hitler and vandalizing the homes of minorities for instance, I don't think your primary concern would be "bigotry" against the "religion" of said group. You would probably be more concerned for the rights of the minorities that were violated by this group, and you would probably consider their "religion" a bunch of racist garbage. So when the Muslims are out stoning teenage girls for "adultery" or the Christians are beating some gay kid with 2x4s I have to scoff at the pleas for "religious sensitivity". If it was really their religious sentiment that caused the problem, then it indicates a deeper problem than "a few bad apples" to me.

I advocate the same set of rights and responsibilities for theists that I want for everyone else; namely, I expect them not to violate or threaten the rights of vulnerable minorities and others. If that constitutes "hate" you'll just have to live with it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

417. I think this needs to be said. nt

[bvar22]

418. The Aryan Brotherhood has a list of "Truths" too....

You should check them out if you want some like minded friends.

[mudesi]

419. What complete and utter LIES

He wasn't an advocate for proposition 8?

You could've fooled me!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o4QqGbQmU0

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[EFerrari]

420. So, how did this thread that starts out by flat out misrepresenting Warren

three ways to Sunday get 120 votes?

That's sad as hell.

Warren did endorse Prop H8. His business depends upon hating other people. His "work" in poverty, AIDS and the environment is a big fat redding herring calculated to make him look moderate.

[PeaceNikki]

421. It is sad as hell

And REALLY makes me wish that there was an "unrecommend" feature. Not that silly ratings thing that was tried... a REAL unrecommend.

[Mithreal]

426. Annoying truths? Sorry, you failed.

1 Oh really? Ok, we take the good with the bad right? Even when the bad is so offensive to some in our community.

2 It is not about "gay rights" it is about the rights of our fellow Americans. Some can have civil rights, others cannot. When some are not free, we all are not free.

3 Give me a break. Reaching out is an excuse for accomplishing less than is necessary.

6 remains to be seen.

7 so make the noble gesture to someone who also represents Democratic Party values.

8 attacking the ignorant? gimme a break, maybe attacking ignorance though is acceptable and does. And that applies more to authoritarian minds than ignorant ones. Ignorant by definition means they are not aware.

9 you can't even unite the Democratic Party o this one, sorry. Let's just have one party then. Oops, did I just let out the DLC's little secret.

10 Tolerance of the intolerant? Explain to me how tolerating the intolerant is a virtue, please. Folks who are having your jobs, houses, and health stolen, you all need to be more tolerant of the greedy. They really can't help themselves and dontcha know it is a virtue.

11 BS, Civil rights trumps. You do no have to respect someone's religious views. You do need to respect their rights. They have a right to freedom of and from religion but they do not have the right for you to respect their beliefs. Utter nonsense even if you say it nicely. It's always the wronged that must show proper deference to those who want to take away their rights. This is such a loser argument.

12 BS, not even close. Not sure how you can even write this trash, you are so wrong.

13 Is freedom gray? Maybe gay folks should just get some of their civil liberties because the world is gray.

[AtheistCrusader]

431. Welp.

Everything I wanted to say has been said. How about that. Why doesn't this forum have a negative rep or unrecommend?

I'll just call this out:

Some can have civil rights, others cannot. When some are not free, we all are not free.
This also ties into the OP's #13, shades of grey. There is no 'shades of grey' on this issue.

I'm amazed this thread hasn't been deleted.

[Name removed]

432. Deleted message

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

[Elderon]

435. Do I have a 3rd choice here?

Because from the way EVERYONE is flaming about this, i'm afraid to mention whether i'm Gay or Straight!!!

Both of those words now seem bigoted to me.

So, whatever the 3rd or 4th choice is... Then that's where i want to be.

Black & White... Shades of Grey... You know what? We ALL live on this Freaking planet together and we better ALL start getting along or SOMEONE is going to come and kick our asses off of it.

and plant flowers

on second thought... I'm going to buy the seeds right now

[Uncle Joe]

437. Kicked and too late to recommend.

Thanks for the thread, nomad.:thumbsup:

[dbackjon]

439. This post is so wrong in so many ways

There IS no defense for the Warren pick.

NONE

ZILCH


DU should be united opposing it, and criticizing Obama for it.


Instead, we get a hetero circle-jerk telling the gays to STFU, move to the back of the bus, and wait for the heteros to grant us rights.

[JNelson6563]

442. Well done post.

:toast:

[bluedawg12]

443. here's a little "Rick love for gays" story.

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/12/that_weird_hug_from_rick_warren.php
........

In December of the previous year, I wrote a letter to Warren outlining my plan to bring a group of gay and lesbian couples, and their children, to visit his Saddleback Church over Father's Day weekend.

<snip>

Eventually, I heard Warren call out my name. As I turned to greet him, he hugged me, my partner, and our three children . . . and then walked away. No conversation. Minimal eye contact. Just an awkward hug and he was gone.

The following day we tried to initiate heartfelt conversation with the four Saddleback staff members who managed to show up. From the opening moments it was clear that this was a meeting to save face without any real interest in hearing our stories or getting to know us.
........

[EFerrari]

444. I still don't understand how this got 120 recs. Did NOBODY fact check item #1?

Nobody?!

Warren is one of the four most powerful fundy nutcase leaders AND all he has done since he got this invitation is to slam gay people in the press. He's updated the anti-gay language at his website and released a new anti-gay video. Haven't heard much about poverty from him lately.

:shrug:

He went on camera endorsing Prop H8. Haven't seen him on camera talking about his abstinence only AIDs program lately.

:shrug:

How is that not being a leader against gay civil rights?

Anybody?!

Did NO ONE fact check this post before voting for it 120 times?!

[Rockholm]

448. Stupidity. And total assholism on their part.

Facts don't matter when it comes to us.

[sundog]

452. just a reflection of the current state of this site

but i thank god in heaven that the op will respect my lifestyle

*now scooting out of thread before post gets deleted*

[Rockholm]

445. Individual answers to your thiteen.

1. Yes they are. You are BLIND.
2. Yes it does. It endorses his bigotry.
3. That is reaching.
4. That is absolute BULLSHIT. You have missed way too much, or simply don't care.
5. Again, Bullshit.
6. Possibly. The jury is out on this one.
7. We did win the election and Warren's speaking is not a noble gesture.
8. Ignorance has shown its head once again.
9. This is true. Still waiting for the uniter. Thought is was Obama. Still could be.
10. This is true.
11. Lost me on lifestyle. Go fuck yourself. Respect me and I will respect you.
12. Wrong. Guess you have not experienced KKK and their views on religion.
13. The world is black and white. There is a middle, but to not acknowledge that there are differences does nobody any favours.

[AntiFascist]

451. Another annoying little truth:

Progress is being made in the debate over Warren, whether you like it or not.

[Leo The Cleo]

457. Problem with number 1 on your list.

"1) Warren's priorities are not opposing gay marriage (or abortion, the forgotten view), rather it's poverty, Aids and global warming. In other words he was not a leader or the strongest advocate for prop 8."

This is untrue. His concern really isn't poverty. During Katrina's aftermath he said that people should stop questioning the Presidents actions to help the poor people of the area. He said, we need only pray. If poverty were one of his missions, he wouldn't have made those comments. Certainly, there has been enough time to apologize for it, yet he hasn't. So, poverty sounds like one of his missions, but it's not.

[KitchenWitch]

460. One annoying little truth for you...

People are upset by the choice of Rick Warren. They feel betrayed by PE Obama. Those feelings are not going to disappear magically because YOU and countless others want them to. Period.

Get over the fact that not everyone here marches in lockstep with you. You must get awfully dizzy the way you think the world revolves around you.

[Toasterlad]

463. The Only Thing True About Your Post Is That It's Annoying

Not to mention condescending, mean-spirited, ill-intentioned, and a perfect example of your lack of understanding about a great many things.

[readmoreoften]

464. This is fine-sounding illogical jibberish and the fact that it is on the homepage is disgusting

1) Warren's priorities are not opposing gay marriage (or abortion, the forgotten view), rather it's poverty, Aids and global warming. In other words he was not a leader or the strongest advocate for prop 8.

Warren's unrepentant statements that gay people are equal to child rapists and those who practice incest is analogous to statements comparing Jews to rapists of German women and Blacks to rapists of white women. It posits the 'hated minority' as a sexual victimizer of the 'most vulnerable' members of a society. It is irrelevant whether or not someone who makes such statements fights for poverty, AIDS, and global warming or whether he was "the worst of the advocates" for Prop 8.

THAT BEING SAID, Warren's advocacy for people with AIDS is more dangerous than his silence, since he diverts funding to "abstinence only education." He has lambasted pastors who advocate for the poor "Marxists", so I would hesitate to say that he empty words mean much in the way of challenging poverty. And if you are willing to tolerate slander of an entire people for the sake of advocating one pastors position on global warming, I'd say you're entering dangerous moral and political territory.

2) Allowing Warren to say a prayer does not take away a single person's civil right, nor does it change Obama's positions or the Government's positions or policies on gay rights.

No one is denying Warren's right to say a way. He can say one in the privacy of his own home. Giving the national stage to honor a man who lumps gays and pedophiles together, as well as says that gays are trying to 'ruin marriage' and are 'christophobic' has already and will continue to stoke the arrogance of the religious right. Per another highly rec'd post (based in FACT), the rape and murder of gay men and lesbians are statistically higher when anti-gay rhetoric is present. The fomenting of murderous sentiments among a people is most certainly an attack on civil rights. As far as anyone can tell, Obama has no real clear position for LGBT civil rights. Not having the courage to denounce hatred of LGBT Americans from the pulpit does in fact reflect a 'government opinion' on LGBT rights. But you're right it doesn't change it. It just fails to have "the courage to change" the status quo.

3) Reaching out and trying to find common ground means you are going to be reaching out for people you DON'T agree with. It's not reaching out if you only surround yourself with people who agree with you.

You can 'reach out' to people without giving them the honor of being in the spotlight on a national stage. Unless the Democratic party is allowed to put "the quieter advocates" of Stormfront and the Klan on stage with Barack Obama, Obama should be criticized for inviting such a man to pray with him at a party honoring the hard work of the Democratic party in winning an election. The idea that you are only "surrounding yourself" with people who agree with you if you refuse to promote their agenda is ludicrous. Obama is not having a debate about LGBT people on the stage. He is promoting the career of one anti-gay pastor.

4) DU is not and never has been anything but supportive of the GBLT community

It has failed epically on this issue, and the fact that this post was chosen for the home page is case in point.

5) DU has not collectively (there may be isolated incidents out of frustration) told the GBLT community to "STFU". They have spoken out when people have posted views and positions they don't agree with.

DU never tells anyone to STFU. In fact, "DU" never says anything. The mods say things and the members say things and the owners say things. This is a silly argument.

6) When Obama enters the White House he will become the strongest advocate for gay rights, the White House has ever seen.

Thank you for your unbiased and basely opinion

7) We won the election. Giving Warren a chance to say a prayer is a noble gesture, not defeat.

LGBT people lost Prop 8, giving a Prop 8 proponent the cherished honor of "inaugural prayer" is a slap in the face to LGBT Obama supporters. Already his supporters have claimed it as a victory for "their side.' Thanks for being 'noble' at the expense of our health and safety.

8) The real enemy is the ignorance and intolerance that allowed prop 8 and other equally abhorrent laws to pass. Attacking the ignorant has never proven to be an effective path to enlightenment, it only causes them to close their minds and dig in their heals.

Coddling the ignorant and giving honor to those who perpetuate their lies and slander is only going to embolden them in their attacks against us Attacking the Klan and the Nazis was the PRECISE solution and always has been. Warren and his ilk are not IGNORANT they are they envision a world where HOMOSEXUALS DO NOT EXIST. The real enemy is the enemy. Verbal argument has never turned a good person into a racist or an advocate into a homophobe. If Arabs or African-Americans or Latinos spit at me every day and told me they hated me, I would not call for the eradication or 're-education' of Arabs, Blacks, or Latinos and I would not deny their civil rights.

9) The vast majority of knowledgeable people believe that a nation functions best when united, rather than divided.

No nation was more united in spirit than Nazi Germany--once they got rid of the Jews and those who supported them. A nation that unites its majority at the expense of one of its minorities functions very well, but sinks to utter barbaric inhumanity. This nation will be no different. Please note that there were many who supported the Nazis and claimed not to hate Jews at all. "We just want our own culture and we've lost that to all the Jewish professors changing our culture" they said.

Justice is NEVER less important than national unity.

10) Tolerance is considered a virtue. It's a virtue for everyone including liberals, conservatives, religious and non-religious.

Tolerance has never been considered a virtue. Temperance, but certainly not "tolerance". Unless you are willing to tolerate Nazis, the Christian Identity Movement, Antisemitism, and Dominionism you better be willing to fight those who want to annihilate you. And if you don't care about yourself, have the decency to "not tolerate" those who espouse the death and dehumanization of others. Courage is considered a virtue everywhere.

11) It's better to give respect, when asking for respect. In other words not respecting a person's religious views, is a bad start when telling them that they in turn should respect you and your civil rights and life style. Respect begets respect.

The fact that the term "lifestyle" is on this home page is telling. We're not asking for your respect. We're demanding it. Obviously, respect doesn't beget respect. LGBT people have never raped, murdered, and denied the rights of straight or religious people. We're still waiting for that respect to be returned.

12) Comparing a person's religious beliefs with organized racists, is as offensive and wrong as comparing gay marriage to incest or polygamy.

If your religious beliefs include the idea that a subset of society are pedophiles, then no, it's not offensive. Unless you believe that 'pedophilia should be tolerated' then you are, indeed, analogous to any hate group who denies a people based on inborn characteristics.

13) The world is not black and white, rather it's many shades of gray. The "either you are with me or against me" mentality is simply misguided and wrong. People are more complex than a single issue or position.

There are times when the world is VERY black or white. When you cast a vote in the United States, you voted for Obama or McCain (or perhaps someone else if they were on the ticket.) You didn't vote shades of gray.

There is no shade of gray between "you are equal to a pedophile" and "you are not equal to a pedophile. There is no shade of gray between "I crossed the picket line and I didn't cross the picket line." The idea that LGBT people are inferior to heterosexuals is not a shade of gray. It is a black and white statement. You either support that it is a dangerous lie that needs to be challenged or you don't.

These people have guns at our collective heads. The Democrats have the power to wrestle it out of their hands. Either you and your ilk are going to do so, or you're not. Black and white. Some things are really simple.

[plantwomyn]

506. Hurrah!

:hug: :applause:

[Wetzelbill]

465. Number 6 is definitely wrong

He's not as bad as many others, like Bush, for example. He probably isn't any better than Clinton was. But he's certainly not a big advocate or anything.

Number 4, that's off too. I've seen it get ugly for the LGBT here in some instances. Also, the jokes about Coulter being a man etc etc, those are prevalent and they hurt some people in that community. I see lots of people who generally agree with the rights of the GLBT community, but its one of those issues, like poverty, where people aren't overly supportive or really take a whole lot of time to fight for. Anything but supportive is a huge stretch, I've seen lots of non-support over the years. LGBT rights are generally agreed with, but meet with tepid support overall. It's something that's pretty far down on the list of priorities for the Dem Party and for most people here.

And I'm straight, just to clarify.

[Unca Jim]

467. So...let me get this straight...

DU is a horrible place full of people who hate gays and fully support the Warren choice?

Wow. I'm really sorry things are so bad for the gay posters that they are in a place where they can think that. I wish Prop. 8 didn't pass and I think Warren's a bad choice too.

[Kweli4Real]

473. I have to admit ...

I haven't read the entire thread, because it hurts. It hurts to see a group of politically conscious folks splintering over the Warren issue. Yes, the choice of Warren to say a prayer is one that I would not have made, but there are more issues on the horizon that IMHO are far more pressing than this single issue. The fact is the choice of Warren pales in comparison to the current state of american foreign and domestic policy. As I commented in a different thread, as a proud and vocal African-American, I would write the prayer for the grand dragon of the KKK, if he was actively working to bring his flock to address other social justice issues, such as poverty, without respect to race.

You want to fight for universal equal rights , Warren's saying a prayer will do nothing to stop you, but don't you think we'd be wise to support Warren's efforts to combat poverty and homelessness? Isn't that is the nature of democracy? ... forming coalitions to address mutual concerns and forming other coalitions to fight for other concerns,even if that means opposing members of the initial coalition, but only on that specific issue.

All this "you have to be 100% supportive of all MY issues or you are my enemy and where I never want to go to again.

It hurts to see this community devolve into such a state ... but I guess the conduct surrounding the democratic primary should have lowered my expectations.

[AntiFascist]

488. Uh, we can combat poverty and homelessness just fine...

without supporting Warren's efforts. How's about let's do it that way?

[AntiFascist]

489. Here's an idea...

we have 350 billion dollars (apparently) available ready to give to banks, many of whom don't even want to deal with this money. What if some well-known religious leader (who is not as controversial as Warren) comes forward with the suggestion of using that money to give to the poorest members of society in order to stimulate the economy. He or she could approach Obama with his cause, and ask to be a replacement at the inauguration to give the invocation. His or her blessing would really mean something. I say its worth a try.

Otherwise, the long-term strategy of the evangelical right is to substitute churches for the social functions of the state. I'm warning you about this.

[RetroLounge]

474. ...

RL

[caseymoz]

475. Agree ! rec (eom)

[LuckyTheDog]

476. Good lord... still?

Are we STILL on the Rick Warren thing?

I would like to say that people should move on and get over it because it's not going to change and because we all know that Obama is not intending this as a slap in the face to the gay community -- and because intentions DO matter. But I won't do that. Here is why:.

If I were to suggest people "get over" this particular thing, I would be accused by some of actually MEANING to tell the GLBT community to "get over" every horrible atrocity committed against them in the whole history of civilization. Of course, I would never suggest any such thing. But that would not matter.

These days, people like to intentionally "misunderstand" lots of things and then use the "misunderstandings" to "call out" people for the crime of being insufficiently loyal -- or otherwise suspect. It's a good way to keep people from openly discussing issues and making sure that ideological purity trumps common sense in every case. Hence, if I were to suggest anything along the lines of putting this in context, I would, no doubt, be branded as a homophobe and a bigot.

So, that being the case, I will not suggest that anyone "get over" the fact that Warren is giving a prayer. I will not even suggest that anyone should consider Obama's true motives or give the president-elect credit for his ongoing support for issues important to the GLBT community.

I will, instead, suggest that everyone who is outraged by the Warren prayer should hang on to that simmering rage. Go ahead. Let it eat you up inside, if you like. If you must, allow your rage to blind you to the progress for your cause (and the cause of all freedom lovers) represented by the election of Barack Obama. Let it separate you from those who would be your allies. And please, by all means, feel free to question the loyalty and intentions of everyone who does not share your rage.

It's your right. It's your anger. Enjoy it.

[rpannier]

477. How is it not respectful to not have asked him

He invited Warren as a payback for the invite 2 years ago.

I'm unclear as to that

Tolerance is a virtue. But that does NOT mean you have to tolerate every person and every behavior.
Otherwise we should tolerate serial killers, the KKK, etc

Again, as to tolerating a person's religious views...Where is the line you draw or do you respect everyone's religious views? Even if this means they engage in mysogynistic behavior or pedophelia to name two.

Also, please point out one piece of Civil Rights legislation that has been passed over the past 60 years that was aided by bigots?

[Name removed]

478. Deleted message

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

[TK421]

479. You know...that sounded so one-sided there for a moment I thought you forgot this

:sarcasm:

and I certainly hope you did forget it

[Solon]

485. Oh, that's just Aya, will do anything to crap on GLBT people and their "lifestyles"...

believe me, this person is well known for it.

[TK421]

486. got it, thanks n/t

[Tveil]

484. too late to rec but great post n/t

[Mass]

487. I'm bothered that this post got 120 recommends, particularly considering point 1.

Sorry, but Saddleback refuses gay members and Warren has a been a big supporter of Prop 8 and is trying to get those weddings that happen in CA overturned, and nobody has to be tolerant of bigoted ideas (not all Christians are bigoted, but those who think gay relationships are like incest or pedophilia deserve no tolerance).

[bluedawg12]

491. The word "priorities" makes it OK. Just a "little opposition."

Like his media whoring about gay marriage, everywhere I turn there he is.

New video too.

[Rowdyboy]

490. Maybe one day you'll be on the other side and see just what it feels like to be marginalized....

Naw....not likely

[bettyellen]

493. the OP is what's misguided and wrong. what a bunch of lilly livered gutless horseshit

[Starbucks Anarchist]

502. Amen.

:hi:

[Bette Noir]

494. No.

This isn't right. It's people's lives that are being ruined. Warren is a prime proponent of anti-gay and anti-female bigotry.

[Hansel]

504. Actually most are annoying little opinions. n/t