is homophobia an issue with some liberal

[xchrom]

democrats who strongly support obama?

this is a sincere question -- i really want to know -- to educated.

this is meant a genuine way of reaching out and understanding.

[NJmaverick]

1. Absolutely not, the term is used here as a dishonest label

to cover up a bad position.

[Sub Atomic]

40. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck...

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Are you asking: Are some liberal Dems who strongly support Obama homophobic?

From where I'm standing, I would say most definitely and more than just some. At least, the homophobic ones are certainly louder and much more agressive about making their points than those liberal Democrats who are not homophobic.

[Clovis Sangrail]

3. bullshit

it's meant to call out other DU'ers that you don't agree with.

this sort of garbage really needs to stop

[EFerrari]

4. I don't think homophobia is as much as conformity is

to the point where people reflexively tell each other to shut up and sit down and don't modulate. In other words, STFU is said with the same vigor to people who disagree about a sub-cabinet pick as to people who are fighting for their right to be a legal family.

:shrug:

[MadBadger]

8. People are also being called bigots or homophobes if....

they dont show what some to determine to be the right amount of outrage over the Warren thing.

[Cheap_Trick]

10. My thoughts EXACTLY. nt

[EFerrari]

14. To the extent that happens, it's what DU does whenever we have a heated debate.

If we get more debate than name calling, it's a good day.

[MadBadger]

16. Same thing happened in the primary with racism and sexism

[EFerrari]

19. Yes, it did. n/t

[Danger Mouse]

24. Lot of name calling lately.

[pnorman]

26. "ass-wipe", "faux-radiclism", and "load of FAIL",

Is what I recently got for "inserting my opinion where it was not wanted", on a recent Rick Warren thread. But on another thread on WTO Week in Seattle, that same poster has prissily distanced himself from the "horrid" aspects of that inconsiderate mob. I suspect that we have a closet Log-Cabin Republican in our midst, so I won't take him too seriously from here on.

No, there has NOT been too many "good days" lately on DU, but I'm in it for the long haul. DU, NOW AND FOREVER!

pnorman

[Rebubula]

36. Well...

...this is the website that is famous for 'I Am more liberal\leftist that you' epic threads.

SOP for this site, really. AGREE WITH ME OR YOU MUST BE A FREEPER.

[sniffa]

43. To show no outrage

or worse, question the outrage of the GLBT community and their allies may just make one a bigot. At the least it makes one insensitive and at times cold and unfeeling.

[Umbram]

12. Everything should be open for discussion.

Obama's decisions (even his recent bad ones) should be debated.

It's the overblown rhetoric on all sides that is problematic.

If a person doesn't walk completely lockstep on either side of the argument the people on the other side overreact.

Examples:

Person 1: I don't think it really matters who gives the speech.
Person 2: Obviously not, you have all of your rights and are a bigot.

Person 1: Obama made a big mistake choosing this speaker!
Person 2: You are only saying that because you are a PUMA holdover.

People CAN reasonably disagree (or even just be indifferent) without being all of the worst attributes imaginable.

[AlCzervik]

27. good point and the ones who are yelling the loudest about being persecuted are not

the gay people here from what i've seen.

[quakerboy]

5. can you elaborate on your question some

flesh it out a little?

[GarbagemanLB]

6. 'If you aren't against Obama's choice of Warren, you are a homophobe'

That is the message a bunch of people are basically sending on here, and it is bullshit.

[Umbram]

7. I'm unsure.

I've been a member of Gay/Straight outreach programs on college campuses and am entirely for marriage equality, but I've been deemed a bigot here at DU because I don't give a rats ass about wingnut religious folks.

Actually, I'm not just a bigot, I've been told here on DU that I fantasize about gay people being beaten. *shrugs*

I thought I wasn't homophobic, but I guess I really am? I don't know anymore.

[countingbluecars]

9. I strongly support Obama

and I am not homophobic.

[AntiFascist]

11. The main issue I see is with Obama himself...

I would not at all call him homophobic, per se, and he is a strong ally on MOST gay and lesbian rights issues. I would, however, call him bigoted on the singular issue of marriage equality, where he is influenced by his personal religious beliefs.

[Umbram]

13. Sounds reasonable. (nt)

[MadBadger]

15. I dont think the word is bigoted though, I think its just that hes wrong on the issue of marriage

I think Obama doesnt hate gay people. He is an advocate for gay rights. He just is wrong on the issue of gay marriage. But I think the word bigot, even when talking about the issue of marriage, is the wrong word

[AntiFascist]

17. One of the worst problems with bigotry is when people don't realize they are being bigoted

"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Obama is being strongly influenced by his own religion, particularly when he stands up before the people at Saddleback Church and announces to them that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He could choose to keep these thoughts to himself and realize that there is a civil rights battle going on within that very state. "Intolerance" may be up to debate, but usually when people take a stand based on religious principles, they are submitting to the dictates of their own faith.

[MadBadger]

20. I guess I disagree with the dictionary definition of a "bigot"

I only use the word bigot for the people who hate other groups of people.

[AntiFascist]

23. I see your point now...

but what about the case of Rick Warren? He may truly feel that he loves gay people.

[MadBadger]

25. Hes a bigot.

He thinks being gay is wrong and a sin

[AntiFascist]

28. But he can think that without necessarilly being hateful, see my point?

Even if Warren is hateful deep down, there are plenty of people like him who claim that they "hate the sin, but love the sinner".

[MadBadger]

30. Then how bout we call them religious bigots?

Give them a whole different category. He believes it is wrong to be something that any sane person should be able to see is acceptable Add that to being Jewish, Muslim, etc, and Id call him a religious bigot. But I guess you're right (if you are even arguing that) that he is not the same kind of bigot who thinks "I hate those fuckin fags!" Those people are just plain old bigots.

BUt Id still put Obama, Hillary, Biden and the likes of them in a different category.

[AntiFascist]

31. Sounds fine to me, religious bigotry is a tremendous problem for this nation n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

32. How is it not bigotry to treat one group of people worse than another?

Heterosexual couples are treated differently than homosexual couples, in most states. If you think that's fine, you're a bigot.

It doesn't mean you're Fred Phelps, or even Rick Warren, but you believe that it's fine for some people to be "second class citizens". And it isn't.

[MadBadger]

35. No its not fine, but to lump everybody in the same class as "bigots" isnt either

I guess you choose to call people bigger bigots than others, I choose to call Fred Phelps a bigot and Obama just wrong on this issue.

[Sebastian Doyle]

38. I believe that Obama himself has good intentions on this issue

He has said that he supports "civil unions with full legal equality". I always interpreted that statement as a church/state seperation thing. But if it's going to be full legal equality, then there's no need for a seperate type of legal document. A gay couple and a straight couple should get the exact same license.

However, those good intentions go right out the window when he associates with someone like Prick Warren because Warren actively campaigned for Prop H8, which took away EXISTING civil rights from legally married gay couples.

And by allowing Warren to speak for him, Obama is endorsing Warren's bigotry, whether that's his intention or not.

I think he should have made up with Jeremiah Wright, actually. The right wingers are going to bitch no matter who he gets (they're calling Warren a "liberal" and a "traitor" for fucks sake) so he might as well have the man who was his pastor for 20 years do the speech.

[Indiana_Dem]

21. Good summary. Not that you agree with it but I do.

I am pretty much on the fence about the whole situation...or the jury is still out. There are so many things on both sides of the debate swimming around my head that I can't make a flat decision.

Here is one thing that popped into my awareness today while thinking about it--

ok, what about the Mormons who so vehemently tried to alter propo 8 with their money. What about some of their sects' desire for marriage equality?? Some of those sects believe in polygamy. If we pass some amendment about marriage equality and there's already the law to be able to pursue life, liberty and pursuit of happiness then who's to say we shouldn't let those Mormon sects honor their polygamy? Are we all ok with that? If so, what implications does that lifestyle have on our social systems? I know the Mormon lifestyle is a totally different lifestyle, and please don't accuse me of equating polygamy with gay rights.

I'm someone who likes to try and see things from all sides. At this point, I can't see a resolution. I guess I can just be called a bigot, since I can't decide what I believe yet. I'm leaning toward the ideas put forth that the GLBTs have dismissed as not enough--the idea of civil unions and "marriage" as separate entities for all--where marriage is a religious concept and civil unions are a governing/legal concept. I think that model follows more closely the separation of church and state idea.

So--call me a bigot! I'm just being honest.

[AntiFascist]

22. I wouldn't call you a bigot for that!

Civil Unions as a governing concept may actually have been the best solution, I just don't see it happening easily at all with the history of marriage as it has evolved. Based on the CA Supreme Court debate they could decide (in light of Prop 8) that marriage is invalid for everyone, but they also admit that this would be against the will of most of the people.

I would not equate polygamy with gay rights, since most gays and lesbians have a fundamental need for same sex relationships and I don't think that polygamists have such a fundamental need. (I don't consider myself a polygamist so what do I know?)

[Bluenorthwest]

34. My question as always is

How are you going to control who uses the word 'marriage'. Your concept assumes all religions oppose the use of the word for gay folks and that is not the case. Will they be jailed for using the wrong word? Will a Tradmark on marriage be issued to Rick Warren and the Pope or what?
It sounds like such easy fun to say 'let them have the word' but in a nation with free speech and freedom of religion, how specifically do you 'give' a word to one group, and 'take' the use from another?
I understand that you are just trying to fly some thoughts, I'm fly'n 'em back. No mal intent here, just to be clear. I just see this 'let them have the word' argument and I don't understand how that would work. Thanks.

[Indiana_Dem]

39. Here is the way I see it in response to your question

I understand that there is freedom of religion in this country. If you left the term "marriage" to religion, no one religion would have a monopoly on its definition. Each church could define marriage according to their own belief system. I'm pretty sure there are churches who honor gay marriages.

As ones who argue that many things be left to the states, I believe religious "marriage" should be left to the individual churches and the government be left out of it. It's in similar vain/vein (sp?) to the freedom to bear arms and the freedom of choice. (I tend to test left libertarian in my views)

Well--I just got called-in to work. so, I've got to go until about 11:30pm tonight. Thanks for flying some thoughts back and forth without having a big flame war or something. I really would like to have a solid opinion if the vote ever comes up for me.

[patrice]

18. I think it definitely is.

The idea of Civil Rights for Gays extending to Marriage is tooooooooo new for some people who never previously found it necessary to think about it and, yet, previously have thought of themselves as "Liberals". In my book, they're not really Liberals unless they are capable of thinking Liberally, but be that as it may, for one reason or another they have no cognitive skills with which to solve the issue for themselves, only their own biological impulses and/or brainwashing and they had expected that this would not be a problem, but, as it turns out, it HAS become a problem. It scares them. They literally don't know what to do, because they can't imagine how to orient themselves relative to Gay Marriage. The Prop H8ers scored an organizing coupe and some Democrats want it to "just fade away". The Gay Community isn't going to let that happen.

Although it's kind of stressfull, because I'm concerned about the environment in which these Democrats solve their problems with Gay Marriage, in some ways, I'm kind of pleased about the discussion. I've been worried about all of Obama's cross-over vote and it's effect on issues near and dear to My heart: Peace and Economic Justice. Many crossover Obama votes could have been, not so much votes for Obama, but votes against Palin/McCain, i.e. contrarian bids for power in their own party. Compared to average real Democrats, they're likely to have money and position and maybe they'll even cross-back-over when a more viable candidate is offered. So, How do we keep them from having too much influence on what happens in Iraq or with Health Care Reform right now?

It is my opinion that we can count those who stand with us on full Civil Rights for Gays as real Progressive Democrats and I look forward to whatever opportunity presents itself for all of our elected representatives, both at the state and federal levels, to make their positions publicly clear on this issue. It probably won't get that far, but I'm hoping that it does.

[stillcool]

29. I would imagine that..

homophobia is an issue with a large part of the population...regardless who they support, or what label they where.

[democrattotheend]

33. Around here, I think prejudice against religious people is a bigger problem

I am not aware of anyone on DU who is homophobic, but I have seen plenty of bigotry and prejudice toward religion and people who practice any religion, and that bothers me.

[Leo The Cleo]

37. Homophobia is in issue with all people

The radical right doesn't own homophobia. It doesn't own racism. It doesn't own sexism. The right doesn't own any of the "isms." The fact of the matter is that this country and this world has a moral deficit when it comes to acceptance and understanding.

[Texasgal]

41. No.

You are not a liberal if you are homophobic. Period.

I also think the label has been irresponsibly thrown around here in the last couple of days.

[Leo The Cleo]

42. I don't know

I certainly wouldn't say a person is fully progressive, however, I can't say that they aren't. I think many things lie on a spectrum. I think being liberal (i hate that term) has various different colors. However, I would agree that a homophobe is certainly not the most progressive person. But how homophobic is the person? Do we consider a person who believes all rights should be afforded to all, but does not want to associate with homosexuals at all homophobic. I certainly think we would, but it the person non-progressive? I don't know. I don't know that we can paint everything with broad strokes.

[boppers]

44. Lately there's been a lot of homophobia expressed on DU.

Lots of self-proclaimed liberals still have inner struggles, where their ideals clash with their everyday actions and reactions....

I think it's part and parcel of dealing with larger issues, and the blindness we have (as humans) when looking at ourselves.

Sort of like the person who fights for the rights of African-Americans, but thinks it's "common sense" to cross the street to avoid a group of A-A kids, there are a number of homophobic attitudes currently rationalized and self-justified in our society.

That societal zeitgeist is also present on DU.

[Skittles]

46. YOU KNOW IT, BOPPERS

:thumbsup:

[baldguy]

45. Either gays are human, or they aren't.

If they are, they're covered by the Constitution and are subject to the same laws & restrictions as everyone else - it means they also have all the same rights as everyone else.