He only advocated against the marriage of blacks & whites, no big deal, right?

[debbierlus]

Obama wouldn't have any problem having his key & only speaker at his inauguration be a person who openly advocated laws banning interracial marriage. Right. That would be fine...If it helped bridge the gap between those who supported laws against marriage between different races, and it is the politically expedient thing to do. Reach across that aisle....

No, you say. He would never let a person who advocated such profound racism and suppression of minority rights represent him on his first day in office?

Then, why the fuck is it okay to pick someone who advocates for the SAME discrimination, just against a different group. Frankly, I am SICK of granting Obama the benefit of the doubt. There are certain principles you do NOT compromise. And, THIS is one of them. This reaching across the aisle is BULLSHIT. How dare he use a homophobic hate mongerer (and that is what it is, I don't care how nicely they try to put it), how dare he use such a person as a bridge for unity.

It seems to be his bridges always seem to COMPROMISE the integrity of the left. It is about appeasing ignorance and bending to the views of right.

Yeah. Yeah. I know. He needs to lead the whole country. Well, here's an idea for you. Maybe he ought to expose the whole country to the TRUTH of what this government has been doing for the past eight years. Pull the curtains wide open and let the light of day shine on the treasonous, murderous acts of our government over these past two terms. If he dictated the media cycles with that type of investigation, and did the work of exposing truth, he wouldn't need to use homophobes to bring the country together (which isn't working btw, he is losing his base before his administration even starts). He would unite the country through truth. People wouldn't even think about gay marriage, they would be so blown away by what the government has become. And, then, people would see how much change we really need.

But, we can't do that because Pelosi signed off on the torture memos.

And, the game continues.

[bicentennial_baby]

1. ...

:applause:

[debbierlus]

This is such a clear cut issue, I don't no how any person can defend him.

[Bjorn Against]

2. K&R.

[leftstreet]

3. "And the game continues" K&R

[Maven]

4. ...

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[merbex]

5. Right to the point and right on!n/t

[LostinVA]

6. Thumbs up

[slackmaster]

7. The analogy does not hold water, and the reason is very simple

Nobody thinks that skin color is the result of a personal choice. Many people mistakenly believe that sexual orientation is.

[Bjorn Against]

9. For years the facts have shown that it is not a choice.

And virtually every homophobe has almost certainly heard the facts which show that sexual orientation is not a choice, if they choose to ignore the facts that doesn't make them any less of a bigot.

[slackmaster]

13. You know that, and I know that, but millions of people still don't get it

Millions of people don't "believe" in evolution either. Are they all just ignoring the metric shit-ton of evidence that supports it? I don't believe so. I think they are just plain ignorant.

Do you really think that 52% of the people who voted in the general election in California last month are bigots? The more likely explanation is that they are uneducated.

[Bjorn Against]

20. Yes, I do think they are all bigots.

Those who oppose equal rights are by definition bigots, and there are a lot of bigots in the world.

[slackmaster]

26. In their minds they do not oppose equal rights

They believe gay men and lesbians have the right to marry one woman or one man respectively, just like heterosexuals do.

You and I view it as them denying LGBT people the right to marry the individual of their choice.

State of mind is very relevant here.

[Bjorn Against]

29. They do oppose equal rights though, it doesn't matter how they try to justify it.

[slackmaster]

36. What you call their "justification" is, from their POV, an internally consistent world view

No justification is required because they aren't the ones who are trying to change things. To them, homosexuals et al are trying to justify THEIR immoral choices by adopting the mantle of an oppressed class.

That mindset runs wide and deep. That is the gulf that we have to overcome to get people to see things the right (i.e. our) way.

[Bjorn Against]

42. Well their world view is wrong, and I am not going to pretend it is valid.

[slackmaster]

43. Think whatever you want, the key to fixing the problem is to get their world view to change

IMO that is not best done by screaming "Bigot!" in their faces.

[Bjorn Against]

44. I used to be a right-winger...

Granted I was never part of the religious right so I have never thought the way the Warren's of the world do, but I was a right-wing Libertarian. What changed me was not the people who tried to reach out to me, but the people who showed me that I was wrong. Once I could no longer defend my positions I changed, if we want to get people to change we need to show them that they can not defend their positions either.

[slackmaster]

48. That's good to hear

Thanks for the personal disclosure.

[debbierlus]

49. That should be a seperate post on how Obama should lead

[Bjorn Against]

52. I will try to get one up in the next couple of days.

I have written on this subject a few times before, and I will continue to write about it in the future.

[debbierlus]

54. It is important because it addresses how Obama can bring change without compromising core principles

We do not need to legitamize hate & fear, in order to reach across the aisle.

Truth & compassion are the answers.

[mkultra]

57. Shoving your ideas in other peoples faces, right or wrong

will convince far fewer than treating them like humans in order to get them to listen. Perhaps there are a few people that are to busy yelling themselves to listen and must be yelled back at.

Whats really at the core here is that Obama is putting the economy first. To fix the economy, he needs to be inclusive. And yes, excluding people for their ideals and practices is bigotry no matter which side of the cloth you hold face up.

[treestar]

56. Amen

And just trying to exclude them from public participation is not going to work - it would just make them take up a martyr-type of position.

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. Many people mistakenly believe all sorts of stupid shit

Anybody who voted for Chimpy in 2004, for example. But why the FUCK should we cater to those morans when their stupidity feeds whats wrong in this country. Just like the stupidity of the homophobes.

[slackmaster]

15. You are blurring the distinction between hatred and ignorance

I reluctantly accept the general usage of the term "homophobe" to describe people who hate LGBT people, rather than the purely clinical application of the term to people who have an irrational fear of LGBT people.

Let's try to at least agree on definitions here. Homophobes aren't necessarily stupid. They're hateful and mean. I do not regard all of the people in California who voted Yes on banning same-sex marriage as homophobes. They're mostly ignorant.

[Sebastian Doyle]

21. Well, to quote the Canadian philosopher Neil Peart

Quick to judge
Quick to anger
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand...

[Zuiderelle]

37. And many racists aren't hateful and mean. They're ignorant.

So, no you're not exactly right. Homophobes can just be ignorant fuckwads. Just like the ignorant fuckwads who voted against Prop 8. And just like the ignorant fuckwads who don't think blacks are equal to them, but don't necessarily hate them and aren't necessarily mean to them. Just ignorance.

Of course, it could be argued that people who live with their ignorance and don't seek to change, are hateful and mean simply by virtue of their ignorance.

[slackmaster]

59. I believe you meant to say "ignorant fuckwads who voted FOR Prop 8"

To which I respond that some are ignorant, some are true bigots.

[Zuiderelle]

61. Yes, that's what I meant to say...

And yeah, we agree on that.

[QC]

17. Some people still think that illnesses are caused by demonic possession.

Do we pander to such people or do we recognize their ignorance?

[slackmaster]

32. We do respect their right not to seek standard medical treatment

Whatever that has to do with the subject.

[apocalypsehow]

33. Warren shouldn't speak at the inaugural IMO, but for you to act like a disinterested party is enough

to make a cat laugh. You've never had much but contempt and disdain for the president-elect since the first time I ever saw one of your posts on the subject.

:thumbsdown:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

18. But many people think a different skin color is indicative of negative things.

They obviously know nobody chooses to be black, Latino, etc., but they force their stereotypes on the people in question.

[debbierlus]

55. Exactly

[Two Americas]

22. not relevant

At issue here is the persecution and abuse of human beings, our brothers and sisters, under whatever guise and with whatever excuse.

There are those who think poverty and homelessness is a "personal choice" and use that to justify mistreating and neglecting the poor.

There are those who think that mistreatment of people of color is justified because of the "choices" made by "some of them."

Every sort of persecution and abuse and oppression can be justified by the "personal choice" line of reasoning.

No one ever makes the "personal choice" to be abused, persecuted, oppressed, or denied human rights and equality.

[slackmaster]

30. I disagree with your fourth bullet item.

Every sort of persecution and abuse and oppression can be justified by the "personal choice" line of reasoning.

Slavery was justified by considering blacks to be non-human. BIG difference.

[Two Americas]

40. "personal choice" is the modern variant

The point is that the victims are to be blamed, or that they are suited for persecution or oppression or destined for it. Justifications for abuse are just that - justifications - and they evolve and change over time. Obviously, "personal choice" would not work with slavery, so a different line was used. The modern "personal choice" variation is especially pernicious, because it influences so many liberals and progressives.

In any case, your post is not germane to my fourth point.

I said "every sort of persecution and abuse and oppression can be justified by the 'personal choice' line of reasoning." You say that slavery was not (or could not be?). But it was. The argument was used that slaves were better off in slavery, and would voluntarily stay or return, and were just being stirred up by agitators holding out false promises.

[slackmaster]

41. I'm not trying to justify what you and I view as unequal treatment of people, merely to explain it

I do see a distinction between unequal treatment that arises from real hatred and that which is the result of ignorance or superstition.

[Zuiderelle]

27. And many people used to believe that blacks should be the property of whites.

Of course the analogy is a good one. It's a very basic one. Civil equality, period. There are still people who believe that races shouldn't mix. Ignorance is no reason that this analogy doesn't work. In fact, it's more reason, since the ignorance of those who objected to interracial marriage is no less offensive than the ignorance of people now who object to gay marriage.

[slackmaster]

28. Again, the analogy fails and I'll tell you why once more

People who thought blacks should be the property of whites did not regard blacks as human beings.

[Zuiderelle]

35. You could say the analogy doesn't work because some people regard gays as abominations

What fucking difference does it make? It's ignorant people deciding that another group of people is not equal to them.

Of course the analogy works, and I'll tell you why... Some people are ignorant fuckwads who don't believe that some other people are equal to them and don't feel that they should have equal rights.

[slackmaster]

38. Not quite

They regard homosexual behavior as an abomination that one can choose to engage in or not.

Some people are ignorant fuckwads who don't believe that some other people are equal to them and don't feel that they should have equal rights.

They believe that every man has the right to marry a woman, and vice-versa. No inequality because TO THEM homosexuality is a chosen behavior.

[Zuiderelle]

46. The continuing flaw in your logic is that you think their ignorance regarding whether being gay is

a choice or not is somehow different than any other type of ignorance about what is or isn't what someone believes. It's simply ignorance. Just as believing that letting blacks and whites marry will destroy the human race is also an ignorant and false assumption, yet some people think that.

It doesn't matter what TYPE of ignorance inspires idiots to believe that others don't deserve the same treatment or respect that they do.

[BR_Parkway]

47. Which is another reason not to add legitimacy to Warren's platform

How do people stop seeing it as some choice I made (so I could get beat, killed, fired, spit on, thrown out of home) if people keep propping up those who have that view.

[jenmito]

8. I believe he WOULD have such a person speak if the majority of the country was

against interracial marriage and there were things they DID agree on that had nothing to do with interracial marriage. AND if he had interracial couples in his cabinet, making it known to the country HIS view on interracial marriage.

[Sugarcoated]

14. You get it.

[jenmito]

19. Thank you.

[debbierlus]

23. It seems that there are principled stands that a leader must take, and this is one of them

If Obama had a speaker who advocated against YOUR civil liberties, I wonder if you would be so keen to rationalize his choice.

The fact that discrimination against the gay community has been utilized as a unifying force amongst Republicans should be reason enough for Obama to denounce it.

This is a DELIBERATE pick. Obama is very smart, and he did not overlook the fact that this person ADVOCATED for discrimination against gay people. I believe I know why he did it. It was an appeasement to the 'conservative' (code word for homophobic and hateful) community, a way of reaching out and showing that he would represent the Republicans as well. And, I think it is lousy. By default, he choose the exact same strategy the Republicans have used to gain support. They increase their votes by putting anti-gay legislation on ballots. Obama is putting up a anti-gay speaker to gain reputability with the Republicans. It is the easiest and lowest tactic. And, it wasn't necessary.

I am sorry, but there are issues that simply define the character of a politician. And, this does not speak well of Obama's character.

Not well at all.

[jenmito]

25. Just because I'M not gay doesn't mean I don't feel as strongly about this as gay people do.

I am strongly pro-gay rights. And I know Obama is, too, but not as strong as I am (since he opposes gay marriage). He's using Warren to throw a bone to "COMPASSIONATE conservatives" who DO believe in things like global warming, caring about poverty, AIDS, etc. Meanwhile, Obama is as good or better on gay rights than any of the other Dem. candidates were.

I'm sorry, but his pick of Warren is much LESS important than his pick of Nancy Sutley.

[debbierlus]

31. You can't say he is pro-gay rights and against gay marriage in the same sentence unless

You are trying to be ironic.

The fact that he opposes giving a minority group the same rights as the rest of the people isn't PRO gay rights.

Yes, he is using Warren to throw a bone to the 'compassionate conservatives' and that completely proves my point.

A minority group that has been discriminated against isn't a 'bone' to throw out. If he threw a bone to the White Supremacist community to get their support, would that be alright? Or, an anti-semite group to increase his support amongst people who hate jews and would deny them THEIR rights? How about an anti-woman group to increase support amongst Archie Bunker type men? Would that all be fine?

No. But, the rationale it is okay for him to choose a speaker whom openly advocates against gay rights is okay? Why is that?

I will tell you why. It is because people in this country still are fine with homophobia being part of a political agenda; fine with marginalizing a minority group for their political agenda.

And, that just sucks.

[jenmito]

51. I said, "Obama is as good or better on gay rights than any of the other Dem. candidates were. "

And I'M not fine with homophobia being part of a political agenda. Neither is Obama-he's having Warren do the invocation DESPITE his opposing views on gay issues. And like I said, I DO think Obama would ask people to speak from the groups you mentioned, but you won't ever believe me.

[LostinVA]

34. You can NEVER feel as strongly about this as gay people do -- EVER

Don't you dare ever presume that.

[jenmito]

50. Don't you tell me what I can and can't feel-EVER.

Don't you dare ever presume to know me.

[Marrah_G]

10. wow

:applause:

[last1standing]

12. Absolutely right!

Thank you.

[QC]

16. False analogy: racism is bad, but homophobia isn't.

That certainly seems to be a common attitude in this one-progressive community.

I don't think so, mind you, but that seems to be the new "pragmatic" approach to this issue.

[debbierlus]

39. If we tolerate the marginalization of ANY group to advace a political agenda

We betray our best principles.

[PVnRT]

24. This

:kick:

[mmonk]

45. Home run.

[debbierlus]

53. Rachel Maddow is on fire. This guy is horrible for many other issues as well.

[marimour]

58. Actually I could care less if he did.

I deal with racism in the south on a pretty regular basis. If Obama met with the Grand duke/wizard of the KKK I wouldn't be offended. I would hope that the fact that this meeting is even happening shows that Obama has the ability to sway even the most hateful people and would have hope for the rest of the racists out there.

[debbierlus]

60. Swaying whom?

He is using a bigot and hate mongerer to send a political message of unity with these people, he is NOT doing this to sway or challenge their opinion. And, Obama has been dishonest about this whole thing. He stated that he has COMPLETE opposite positions as Warren yet he shares the same belief that gay marriage should be illegal.


If the Grand Duke Wizard appeared a symbol and speaker at his inauguration, you would NOT approve of that...be honest. This is beyond meeting with someone.

Stop excusing the inexcusable.

[S_E_Fudd]

62. I see this argument all the time...and it is specious...

Instead of applying it to Obama think back 76 years...

How many segregationists and racists were in Roosevelt's administration...?

There were many...he made common cause with southern racists on a whole host of issues unrelated to race. That kind of segregationist attitude was to FDR what discrimintaion against gays is today...

Simply put...there are too many to ignore...as the results of Prop 8 show...

Roosevelt knew as Obama does that those who hold that belief cannot be shunned if you expect to change attitudes or to get anything done...

Simply doesn't work...