Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Before trashing the motives of Obama critics you might wish to put yourself in their place

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 02:40 PM
Original message
Before trashing the motives of Obama critics you might wish to put yourself in their place
I have taken alot of shit for daring to critique Obama's record as it stands with gay rights. To be blunt if you aren't gay you don't know what it is like to be gay. Anymore than I can know what it is like to be black or female. The simple fact is that gays still are totally devoid of any protections unless they are lucky enough to live in one of the fewer than 20 states that offer such protections or live in a city which offers them. There is one state, one single, solitary, and frankly small, state that permits gay marriage. Marriage is such a fundamental right that deadbeat parents don't lose it, people who kill their spouses don't lose it, people who rape children don't lose it. Only gay Californians managed to lose their right to marry. 20/20 recently aired a couple of experiments where gay male couples displayed affection (one on an Alabama park bench and the other in a New Jersey sports bar). The one in Alabama didn't go well with the one in New Jersey going surprisingly well. But the whole experiment shows just how far we have to go. The simple fact is that virtually no gay couple feels totally safe with the idea of either kissing or holding hands in public in most of America.

It is with that context that we look at Obama's actions. When he selected Warren to give the invocation at this Inaguration we saw a man who not only took away our right to marry but would, if permitted to, take away every other right we have fought so hard for, given a place of honor at the banquet of Democracy. In Warren's America, an American more than a few of us live in and or lived in, gays don't have job protections, don't have relationship rights, don't get to adopt or foster children, and aren't treated with respect. When he recently selected five religious advisors and four of the five were actively anti gay with the other having no record at all we saw it through the prism of growing up in faith communities that presured our parents to disown us, our politicians to ignore us as we died in the streets, and our courts to declare us outside the protections of the 14th amendment.

I don't pretent to speak of every Obama critic, every gay person, or even every gay Obama critic. But I do ask that just once, some of you who have all the rights of an American citizen put yourself in the shoes of some who don't. Put yourself in the place of the person with glacoma who faces arrest and financial ruin on the one hand or blindness on the other. Put yourself in the place of the gay man or lesbian woman who has to watch his or her partner go without insurance because a bigotted majority just says no. Put yourself in the place of those who want us totally out of Iraq in a year as promised and face a recall if we aren't out soon enough. In short, pretend it really matters if Obama cares about those issues or doesn't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. thats something that can be considered by both critics and proponents
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
84. Stray Cat, I think you have a point...
I recced the OP because I think they make good points. I also think the motivations of persons who take a different approach to assessing the president is called in to question without complete understanding of where those persons are coming from. Always assume the person is coming from a place from which you may not understand, know or have the ability to empathize with. The OP DID NOT do this but some have put forward the Cult of Personality, bots etc... and that, as has been stated by many, is destructive and does little to advance the motivations of persons on either side of the multi-faceted debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. dsc
:hi: :applause: :fistbump: :hug: :loveya:

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnotforgotten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yes - The Intolerance Of The ObamaBots Is Maddening
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. The raw irony of your post is overwhelming.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
112. shocking isnt it
the blindness is almost amazing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Reminds me of when people were calling Obama a homophobe because he chose Warren. n/t
Edited on Sat Mar-28-09 04:03 PM by ProSense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. AND the preacher who thought he could cure gays of being gay. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. I would like a citation of that
and more specificly of my doing so. Calling Warren a homophobe doesn't count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Who accused you of doing it?
If you want examples do a search.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Hell no
You claimed that we were calling Obama a homophobe. It is your job to back it up, like I just did below.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. No, you claimed. I said "people," not "you" and this wasn't even a response to you. n/t
Edited on Sat Mar-28-09 04:29 PM by ProSense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. and I would like you to back it up
If there were dozens of these threads surely you should be able to find one or two. I want a citation of Obama being called a homophobe over this issue. You claimed it happened. Back it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guruoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
49. Here's one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. two things
One in the very same thread he takes it back and you are totally dishonest to leave that out of your link. Here it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3747771&mesg_id=3748346

Second, even if it hadn't been taken back it actually occured well after Warren and the poster directly stated it was in response to Warren that Obama was called a homophobe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guruoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #53
74. The gist of that whole thread was to imply that Obama is a homophobe through guilt by association
I didn't noice that one poster's later flipflop on the subject-my bad.

BTW: 'Methinks thou doth protest too much'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #74
78. that is a total lie
Here is the OP

Source: UN Dispatch

Obama Reverses U.S. Position on LGBT Issues at the UN
Mark Leon Goldberg - February 19, 2009 - 10:05am

In late December the United Nations General Assembly held a symbolic vote on a statement calling for the universal decriminalization of homosexuality. France spearheaded the resolution, which was a 13 point declaration "to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention." The statement received 60 votes in support, mostly from Europe and South America. Opposing the resolution, were the United States, the Holy See, and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. At the time, the Bush administration couched its objection to the measure in legal technicalities.

Well, that was then. This is now: At the so-called "Durban Review Conference" on racism and xenophonia underway in Geneva, Europe again put forward language condemning “all forms of discrimination and all other human rights violations based on sexual orientation.” According to UN Watch, "The Czech Republic on behalf of the E.U., with the support of New Zealand, the United States, Colombia, Chili on behalf of the South American states, the Netherlands, Argentina and a few others, took the floor in support." (emphasis mine).

The efforts to include language on discrimination based on sexual orientation ended up failing for lack of support from non-western countries. Still, it's relieving to see that the United States is now back on the side of the enlightened on this issue of basic human rights.

Read more: http://www.undispatch.com/node/7729

end of quote



Where in that OP is anything like what you said the whole point of that thread was?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guruoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #78
98. People can read here, and then decide for themselves...
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 02:59 PM by guruoo
Liar, eh? OK, then this conversation is over.

Y'all have a nice day, now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3747771&mesg_id=3748108

More Obama-homophobe 'guilt by association' rants by DUer's and others:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=democraticunderground.com+obama+is+a+homophobe&btnG=Search

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #78
115. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #22
45. what people?
Where was Obama accused of being a homophobe, and what is the relevance of that to this thread?

You clearly meant to use it as an example of how any and all critics of anything the administration does are not to be taken seriously or are to be viewed with suspicion, because what they are saying is similar - "reminds you of" - the alleged irrationality or hostility toward the president of those objecting to the Warren inclusion in the inauguration.

If that is not what you meant to say, then what did you mean to say?


...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #21
113. actually, your challenging reality. you look it up/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
43. who are you accusing then?
And why did you post that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
42. no one did that
I did not see anyone "call Obama a homophobe." It may have happened, but it certainly is a gross mis-characterization to imply that it was true of all, or even many of the people who objected to the inclusion of Warren in the inauguration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. Excellent post.
Thanks for the perspective. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. Solid post, dsc. k/r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
7. I think that Obama cares about all of the issues you mentioned.
Edited on Sat Mar-28-09 04:01 PM by FrenchieCat
and more.

You mention Warren, but was there anything that Obama did that might be significantly positive in reference to the Rights of Gay persons? Would you care to list any of those, just for the sake of fairness in balance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. I have
I liked his appointee to head the federal human resources agency and I also felt his education secretary was right to meet with GLESEN to name two. On religion he has been nothing short of appalling so far. I hope that gets better but on gay rights vs religion he has given the religious what they want. He still lets people who get faith based funds discriminate against gays even in states with gay civil rights laws. He has nearly all anti gay religious advisors. Those are bad signs and I won't ignore them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
26. What about the UN endorsement of decriminalization of homosexuality?
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration on Wednesday formally endorsed a U.N. statement calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality, a measure that former President George W. Bush had refused to sign.

The move was the administration's latest in reversing Bush-era decisions that have been heavily criticized by human rights and other groups. The United States was the only western nation not to sign onto the declaration when it came up at the U.N. General Assembly in December.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_gay_rights



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. It is honestly about the least he could do
Edited on Sat Mar-28-09 04:41 PM by dsc
I am glad for the change in US position but all that does is put us on the side of not criminalizing gays hardly a parade worthy concept. I think the stuff I mentioned is actually much more important than that change was. It would be the equivalent of giving a child an A for not cussing me out upon entering a room to give Obama a gold star for that change. On edit I did praise him in real time for that though it should be noted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. So in otherwords, when Obama does something useful in reference to the Gay community,
it goes without saying that he should have......and there is no symbolic significance it it.....

But when he enlists an anti-gay marriage minister to give an invocation which has nothing to do with policy, it takes on symbolic importance?

I thought policy directives were of more significance to the Gay community, but obviously I was wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Apparently you either won't or can't read
Edited on Sat Mar-28-09 04:58 PM by dsc
I will go back and quote exactly what I typed one more time. It then becomes your job to actually read what I wrote and not make shit up.

On edit here is what I wrote


I liked his appointee to head the federal human resources agency and I also felt his education secretary was right to meet with GLESEN to name two. On religion he has been nothing short of appalling so far. I hope that gets better but on gay rights vs religion he has given the religious what they want. He still lets people who get faith based funds discriminate against gays even in states with gay civil rights laws. He has nearly all anti gay religious advisors. Those are bad signs and I won't ignore them.

bold added since you apparently couldn't see it before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. The sentence that you bolded as what to do with endorsing
the U.N. statement calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality?

One has to do with appointing Gay folks to administrative posts,
the other has to do with supporting a policy worldwide in support of Gay Rights.

Unless you are saying that you do not feel the need to list all of what Obama may have done right, because that goes without saying?

You are right, I don't quite see what you are saying, although I do see some of what you are saying.

Anyways, there is monumental work still to be done; that much is certainly true.

But I'm just saying that I do believe that President Obama cares more than he is given credit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. This is what I responded to
So in otherwords, when Obama does something useful in reference to the Gay community,
it goes without saying that he should have......and there is no symbolic significance it it.....

But when he enlists an anti-gay marriage minister to give an invocation which has nothing to do with policy, it takes on symbolic importance?

I thought policy directives were of more significance to the Gay community, but obviously I was wrong.
end of quote

Your clear implication was that I never give Obama credit. I clearly did. I will admit I don't find the UN thing all that terrific for the reasons I stated. But I do want to respond to one other thing. Symbolism matters too. One reason that we have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the very real use of symbolism by the Civil Rights movement. Every movement uses symbolism and the symbolism of Warren giving that invocation is hard to deny. It says that bigotry against gays is not only not a disqualification from the table but not even disqualifying from huge honors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #31
39. Wait. He is not moving mountains,but he is on your side.
If you get wigged out about not being given the keys to the Capital and a personal dinner with the big O and family, you are going to have a rough future 4 years. He has done more than any other President to help your equality and you whine.

Grow up and help get this country back from the robber barons and free-market embezzlers, then help attain health care for everyone who needs it, then stop the international fears that are fueling the attacks against innocents, then place the programs to stay off global environmental catastrophe. Rule all the people and hold the economy together so it does not conflate. Be everything to everyone and then hear them complain that you did not do it fast enough or good enough.

We still have a culture of little minded RW fools who see anyone who wishes to curve this country towards common good as communistic and Our President has to deal with their major media propaganda. Get real and support the guy who is trying to change things. It will help your cause as well as your friends and neighbors.

You have seen more movement than many other causes. Go to the streets and go to our congress and realize that it's support that is needed, not the ankle biting from any side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. It is debateable at best that Obama did more than Clinton had at this point in his term
especially if you compare the Administrations to the respective societies at large. Clinton also named gay subcabinet positions (Roberta Actenberg). Obama has more openly gay employees than Clinton had but that has a great deal to do with society. Also Clinton did end discrimination in every federal agency save the uniform military. I will say Obama has done some good things but frankly I do think there are some relatively easy steps he could have taken. He could end the FDA ban on gay's giving blood, he could end the ability of people taking faith based funds to discriminate against gays, he could overrule the imigration judge who sent a rape victim back to Brazil to live in the same neighborhood as his rapist. I am not asking for the keys to the capital but just give us what pro choicers got. that would do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. 2 months? You are comparing Obama to Clinton when Clinton had 8 years?
Come on now. Let's be a bit more reasonable. We can see everything that had happened in Clinton's 8 years....but we have no way of knowing what Obama is yet to do....not even close.

I'm a bit disappointed at your approach on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. actually with the exception of the ending discrimination which took place in 98
I am comparing two months to two months. Clinton tried to end discrimination in the military very early in his term and appointed the first openly gay person to need Senate approval very early in his term. After 94 he really wasn't able to do a whole lot for gays. He also greatly increased AIDS funding in his first budget. I do hope Obama gets more accomplished in his 8 years but on a month by month comparision he is about even with Clinton not spectacularly better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. Yes. He could do more,yet give him the our support and I know
that he will push for equality in many areas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
8. K&R
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
10. So say I've put myself in their shoes, and *then* decided they were wrong.
I can go back to making fun of them, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
14. " In short, pretend it really matters if Obama cares about those issues or doesn't."
Edited on Sat Mar-28-09 04:09 PM by ProSense
That's just insulting.

Do you really believe that people who have a disagreement about one issue or another have to pretend that it matters?







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. on some of these issues yes
I think that many, many Obama supporters on this site demonstrably don't give a damn about gay rights. I am not saying all, or even a majority, but there are dozens of Obama supporters, many of them the loudest of the sit down and shut up crowd, who care not one whit about gay rights or hide their concern exceptionally well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. So you're speaking specifically of gay rights in this OP, and
are willing to trash Obama supporters to make your point?

Whether you're a black woman and/or a gay person, people can understand what it means to not have full protection.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I also think many Obama supporters don't care about legalizing pot
either. The fact is that many people here don't give a damn about gay rights and I will provide a link to prove it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Wow, got anymore broadbrush statements? n/t


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Here is a text book example
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5170716

Go ahead and read that thread and tell me that there isn't a substantial group here who don't give a damn about gay rights. Go ahead.

and lest you think I cherry picked here is another thread on the same subject with strikingly similar results.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5190347

Those are the only two, of three threads total that come up on a search, which discuss the issue at all. Again this is just one example I could easily find others such as hate crime threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. I don't want examples.
You accused Obama supporters of being against something by making broadbrush statement, and you cannot justify that with a link to one person's (or a handful of people's) opinion.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I said a minority of Obama supporters
Edited on Sat Mar-28-09 04:34 PM by dsc
either read and quote accurately or don't quote at all. For the record he is my exact quote, all of two and a half lines.

I think that many, many Obama supporters on this site demonstrably don't give a damn about gay rights. I am not saying all, or even a majority, but there are dozens of Obama supporters, many of them the loudest of the sit down and shut up crowd, who care not one whit about gay rights or hide their concern exceptionally well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #25
51. "I said a minority of Obama supporters" Let me check
many Obama supporters

Nope, many > minority.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Many isn't greater than a minority
For example 100,000 is certainly many people, but it isn't a majority of NYC. Of and you of course, left out the post where I directrly said NOT A MAJORITY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #20
58. How on earth do those Liebovitz threads show people don't care about GLBT rights?
The point is that Annie Liebovitz is in financial trouble because she was both greedy and litigious. While it's unfair that she did not have the marital estate tax exemption, it is also true that her financial troubles were not caused by the absence of that exemption, but by her trying to hang on to million dollar real estate properties during the real estate bubble, trying to circumvent historic preservation laws, and suing people who tried to get in her way.

What was being pointed out was that she is the worst possible poster child for the unfairness of tax treatment of GLBT couples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. Yes they most certainly were
She sold the rights to pay taxes, taxes that she wouldn't have had to pay but for the fact she was gay and not married to the woman with whom she lived for decades. Had it been Steve and Annie instead of Susan and Annie she wouldn't be in this fix. It doesn't get simpler than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. Wrong
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 08:06 AM by HamdenRice
If she had paid the tax by selling the property, however unfair, she would not be in that position. She would just not be as rich as she hoped to be. She paid the tax by taking out a mortgage on the properties, hoping they would go up in value -- what every two bit sub prime speculator did during the real estate boom.

The absence of the marital tax exemption did not force her to violate NYC's historic preservation law, get sued by and sue her neighbors, launch a multi-million dollar gutting and renovation of the West Village townhouse, buy out her neighbors for more millions to avoid more lawsuits, all on borrowed money.

People who pointed that out were not saying they don't care about marital equality; most said they did. They were pointing out that her current predicament is entirely self-inflicted.

On edit: You are also mistaken that she sold her photo rights to pay taxes. She didn't. She paid the taxes, but instead of selling some of the property to do so, she mortgaged it, going into debt at the tail end of the real estate boom. The debt then exploded with all her other dumb and greedy moves.

She sold her photo rights to refinance debt, not to pay taxes.

On double edit: You are also wrong about the nature of their relationship, which makes Annie doubly not the poster child for GLBT marital rights. You assume that Susan Sontag was the woman "with whom she lived for decades." In fact, Sontag and Liebovitz did not live together, did not hold themselves out as domestic partners, did not merge households, did not take advantage of New York City's domestic partnership ordinance (enacted by the first African American mayor, David Dinkins in response to the GLBT community), and did not generally even publicly disclose that they were lovers. They were hardly the poster children for the unfairness of marriage inequality, and were a position hardly different from a straight person who leaves property to a long time, but unmarried, lover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #60
66. $0.00 that is what she would have owed if she had been in a striaght couple
As to your point about Domestic Partnership, you have no idea why they didn't decide to register. Many gay couples decide that unless and until they can have a full federal marriage they won't do anything. I won't discuss the wisdom of that except to point out that a city wide domestic partner registry likely wouldn't have been much help to that particular couple. The two main benefits provided by that registry would be access to employer benefits (both Susan and Annie were self employed) and rent control (they owned their property).

The rest are like the conservative complaints about the SCHIP family we chose. The fact Annie made bad choices making an unfair situation worse doesn't matter. Just like the fact that couple in the SCHIP case knew they had no insurance when they got pregnant is irrelevent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #66
70. Absolutely wrong
A "straight couple" would have owed exactly the same amount if they had the same relationship that Sontag and Liebovitz had -- non-couple, non-household, non-partnership, lovers.

They never chose, nor held themselves out as, wanting to be married. They were in exactly the same position as a straight couple that chose to be lovers secretly and in separate households.

As for the SCHIP comparison, that is completely wrong. Liebovitz's problems did not come from the tax; it came from her choice to do massive remodeling, and litigation, and speculation.

That said, even if reasonable people could disagree about the source of her problem (not that I think they can), your basic premise is wrong.

The fact that people point out that Lieobovitz's problems are self-inflicted, in no way suggests that such people "don't care" about marital equality. That's bullshit.

Your examples simply didn't prove the point you were trying to make.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
28. Yep. It is the trashing that I'm getting tired of.
It's not so much people arguing (isn't that what we are *supposed* to do here? ;-> ) as the *way* some are doing it. And, yes, I know that if I don't like it I can leave. I'd rather stay but have people knock off the nastiness. And, yes, I know I have no control over that. Just stating my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
30. Maybe it's just my Asperger's, but I have a hard time "getting into the head" of people I think...
...are incorrect. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. please stop being rational
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. I am honestly sorry for you if you can't appreciate other's perspective
I can't imagine what that must be like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlancheSplanchnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #33
73. oh come now, you seem DETERMINED to not appreciate others' perspectives
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 09:53 AM by BlancheSplanchnik
gay people are not the only oppressed group, but it sounds like you won't be happy until we all wring our hands and confer the mantle of Biggest Victim on you..

you referenced a gay immigrant sent back to Brazil and raped...
you talk about insurance and marriage protections..
you talk about not being able to hold hands and kiss...

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that there's an incredible increase in violence against women (and that includes lesbians and bi-women) worldwide, and fundamentalist religions that want us forced into birth, beaten, sequestered, impoverished...

there are SO MANY examples of suffering. Survival issues. Women, poor people, the disabled, the elderly, blacks, other ethnic groups that you whining about Rick Warren and his small group of crazy fringe supporters, or stomping your feet about being unable to hold hands in public seems pretty misdirected.

You're lecturing everyone that we are not empathetic enough to your plight. But you refuse to be willing to empathize with others enough to see that you're not the only person/group who has a cross to bear.

You can't even see the support for us here at DU and "out in the world". I doubt you'll do this, but reading the Presidential platform on whitehouse.gov is very inspiring. It makes me feel good.

the President took action immediately on taking office on behalf of women and on behalf of gay people, in line with his stated mission. Now he has life threatening issues to deal with, so please...work for continued expansion of GLBT rights, and look for right timing.

As other posters here have said, change in mass attitudes takes time, and the changes that gay people have enjoyed in a short time are to be celebrated and appreciated, as we continue the work. We should appreciate how far we've come, especially if you compare that progress to other minorities (even though women are actually a majority, but I digress).

Have a look at Honeycombe8's post, or HamdenRice's--I found them very educational and you could too.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #73
76. gay people are dying right now for lack of insurance
despite being in a same sex relationship. That is life threatening. Gay kids are committing suicide at a rate of 3 times other kids that is life threatening. Obama has already issued executive orders protecting abortion rights and we have had, for over a decade a law devoted to reducing violence against women. We still don't have a similar law for gay people. I realize gay issues are trivial to you, but for some of us, they are life threatening. Oh, and only two groups have seen an increase in hate crimes this decade,gays and muslims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #73
77. Wow. Just...wow.
Where has dsc ever said he wasn't sympathetic the plight of others?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pisces Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #77
85. to imply that Obama is doing nothing for the gay community is a lie or that he doesn't support
gay rights and causes is also a lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. on the subject of lies
I never said either of those things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #85
88. I think this whole conversation got bogged down.
In my post down below, I opined that it was about showing empathy, but the signal to noise in this whole thread has lost the point in my opinion. I could be wrong. It has had the opposite effect of putting a large number of posters in a defensive posture here. I wish these issues could be discussed with more warmth rather than blazing heat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #73
110. dsc has always been concerned about the rights of others.
You can't be more wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #30
79. Well, that would explain a lot about your antics here. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
35. Thank you for posting. And please people, when some of us criticize the economy,
Edited on Sat Mar-28-09 05:23 PM by truedelphi
And the recent Feel Good, Please Buy up some Private-Public-Bad-Boy-Toxic Assets which are really worth nothing but will certainly enable Presdiential candidates to garner a lot more money from Wall Street when they run in 2012, our criticism is not really because we hate America, or don't think we should have a black president.

It is simply that in the world of real economics, if you spend a great deal of money on worthless BailOut Programs, massive inflation will result.

I don't know how I will afford bread when it is $ 13 a loaf. And I hate thinking of what that will mean to people here on Social Security, disability, small pensions, minimum wage, or even maximum wage but with kids.

And as far as the environment, - to the thinking of many activists, the most important matter on the environment is the matter of GMO's. If you love Obama blindly, you'll love
Velsick, his appointee for Department of Agriculture. But if you truly hate Monsanto, every time you read of another mass suicide by farmers in India, you know that the Puppet Masters have as much control over the new administration as they did over the old one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #35
65. >>Puppet Masters have as much control over the new administration as they did over the old one.
Not quite as much, I think, but a lot. Our elected officials are far from the top of the food chain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kid a Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
36. Obama wears size 12, try'em on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
38. K & R. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
41. There are good-faith people--such as yourself--who have something very real
at stake and feel it if he messes up.

And then there are the ideological bombthrowers who live to hate anyone in the White House. They hated Clinton, they hate Obama, and you can bet they would have hated Gore if he had been President.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hanse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
48. Well, OK...
I'll have my wife leave me, I'll move back into my mom's basement, I'll gain about 150 pounds of cellulite with Dr. Pepper and Crazy Bread, I'll put Ron Paul posters all over my walls, Hillary Clinton bumper stickers on my F-150, turn on Rush on the radio, read the latest Paul Krugman article, and then complain about how that uppity muslin is taking away my rights to criticize him on DU, and then sneak over to my favorite RW website to brag about how much of an obnoxious ass I'm being.

I'll get right on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
50. I am going to kick and recommend this excellent post.
And I will add that "putting yourself in another's shoes" goes for ALL issues and EVERY encounter every day. It is the basis of empathy which is the basis of all good action IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unapatriciated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #50
55. knr
what bonobo said. I have pretty much stop posting anything that might be considered criticism of Obama's policies.
The usual suspects seem to lay in wait to trash any and all opinions that are not theis as soon as you hit the post button.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
54. I'm tabling for gay rights this summer... I'm straight. Should I not do it?
I'm sorry I'm heterosexual. I therefore have absolutely no idea what it's like to be gay... even if I have friends, a brother, a couple uncles and an aunt who are gay. What the hell do I know? I mean... I'm straight, ferchrissakes.

As for people criticizing Obama, I'm all for open and clear dialogue...and solutions instead of just whining like a little punk or some Utopian Purist who offers only bumpersticker analogies without any breadth or depth of the complexities of the issues.

And you're still bringing up Warren? I was there in the crowd and his invocation was NOTHING except for the usual meal-mouthed religious gibberish that one expects at such events. Warren is irrelevant and even hated by his own base. He's a nobody.

Have a great day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. Oh please
You would be among the very first to tell people they don't know what it is like to be black and you would be dead right. No one is saying straights can't care about gay rights but you can't know what it is like to be gay. You can empathise but you can't know. Just like I can't know what it is like to be followed around in stores because I meet the profile of a shop lifter, you can't know what it is like to tell you parents you are gay. Just like I can't know what it is like to drive while black, you can't know what it is like to be truely afraid of displaying any kind of affection in public. So while I can care deeply about civil rights and you can care deeply about gay rights but neither one of us can know what it like to be in the other's shoes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #54
89. yes
Since you asked...

Yes, I would rather that people with your attitude did not go out into public as a representative of the Democratic party or any other cause.

The question is whether or not people have absolutely any idea what it's like to be a human being.

These "reverse" arguments are the most destructive thing imaginable, in my opinion.

People talking about racism are accused of "reverse racism" and we hear things such as "how dare you call me a racist??" as though being called a racist - which is hardly ever the case when people complain about this - is the perpetration, the injustice, rather than racism itself.

We saw that complaint continually around the Warren issue - "how dare you call me homophobic?"

This thinking and "logic" is now pervasive in every discussion. Should one object to being mistreated, one is accused of mistreating the person who is mistreating you, by unfairly accusing them of being the sort of person who would mistreat others.

Were Rip Van Winkle to wake up today from a 40 year nap and read the posts here, he would be forced to believe that the biggest injustices, the biggest worries we had here were these: white people being persecuted for being white; men being persecuted for being men; hetero people persecuted for being hetero; wealthy people being persecuted for being wealthy; privileged people being persecuted for being privileged.


...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #89
109. I sure love that Ignore button
You have no idea how much work I do on a grassroots level. As far as I'm concerned, I'd never want to have peeps like you anywhere near my table... got smoke your bad weed and get fat.... oh, and what's this socialist drivel you call a blog... what an asshat.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 06:47 AM
Response to Original message
57. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #57
75. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Boomerang Diddle Donating Member (566 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
61. Good lord! Still going on about Warren?
Have you ever heard of closure?

And Obama's only been in office a little over two months. It takes a hell of a lot longer than 2 months to change the world! What'd you think, that he's just walk into the WH, snap his fingers and make all the wrongs of the past just magically go away?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #61
67. No but I did think that the Family Research Council would be persona non grata
just like the HRC was for the Bush years. I did think that Obama wouldn't turn uniformly to religious advisors with lousy records on gay rights. I did think that Obama would issue executive orders to ban groups who get my tax dollars from discriminating against me. I don't think that is exactly high expectations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
62. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
63. What bothers the ardents
is the fact that the lack of support is not coming from GLBT people toward Obama, but from Obama toward GLBT people. That is very difficult for them to deal with, and I understand that. Those that want a chorus of unity really ought to be taking that desire to the President, who exploited the division. Myself, I would never expect anyone, from any group, to silence their most deeply sought desires for the sake of any politician. Ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
64. As a middle aged woman, I WAS in the position of not having full citizen rights.
This I know from history:

It takes years, decades, a century even, for changes to be made. The generations who have bigotry instilled in their brains have to die off before real and permanent change can happen.

Change comes in steps. Not in one sweeping bill.

The women's suffrage movement began in the 1800's. It wasn't until the near the end of the 20th century that it actually happened (and some would argue it's not fully here).

The same with African American rights.

The same with rights for those with disabilities.

By contrast, the gay rights movement began a few years ago. It has made sweeping strides in those few years.

So your movement is doing very well. Don't expect sympathies for a group that is doing very well and making heretofore unheard of strides. But remember, you still have to wait for the Baby Boomers to die before the full basket of rights, in practical terms, is given/taken.

Ah, youth. A wonderful thing. But one thing it's lacking is patience and persistence. In this day of instant gratification, the youth expect everything to be instantaneous.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #64
68. that is such a crock of crap
The gay rights movement is over 100 years old and I would suggeset cracking open a history book from time to time before lecturing us about our history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #68
71. You completely missed her point -- either that or don't know GLBT history
By your measure, African Americans and women struggled for equal rights for centuries.

She is talking about the history of particular movements, and their gains.

While slaves resisted going back to 1600, the "civil rights movement" began in the early 20th century and only achieved legal victory in the mid 1960s. While some women have always sought equality, the origin of modern feminist movement is generally dated to the suffrage movement and achieved legal victory in the early 70s.

Some GLBT people have sought acceptance and equality throughout history, but almost all gay historians date the modern GLBT movement to Stonewall.

Or were you not aware of that event?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #71
72. that would be like saying the civil rights movement began with the bus boycot
the Mattachine society was founded in 1950.

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

Here is a link to activity dating back to 1900.

http://www.aaronsgayinfo.com/timeline/Ftime1900.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #72
117. There has been "activity" for all minority groups since the beg. of time, I expect.
But as a formal movement, seeking to get specific legal rights...most people in the country just began hearing of this a couple of decades ago. IF then.

And gay marriage...this began to be discussed as a legal goal only within the last decade. At least discussed with the public at large.

Jane Austen in her books refers indirectly to women's rights. But women's rights wasn't a movement at that time. It was merely an acknowledgement by some women of what they knew to be true: Legally, women were screwed because of their gender. That's not a movement.

The gay rights movement...the rights will come. As more of the older people die off and some of the younger people get older and have more control of the country and its laws. Until then, the rights will probably come in steps. You're seeing it now. One state will allow gay marriage, another will allow civil unions, while yet another will allow neither. I suspect it's because a number of people in the gay movement is white, male, and with a larger than average income...they have more pull than the women did. And certainly more influence than black men and women did.

It's just that, to hear some gay people talk, you'd think everyone everywhere is denying them everything. That's simply not the case. Progress has definitely been made. And all evidence is that it will continue to be made. Pushing is necessary, but impatience only ticks people off when you don't recognize the gains. In 1980 gay marriage, even civil unions, would have been unthinkable to most people in the country. Civil unions are now accepted by most people. And gay marriage is becoming accepted. Just sayin'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-31-09 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #117
118. Hamden, I have to say that I don't believe that's true
It's just that, to hear some gay people talk, you'd think everyone everywhere is denying them everything.

One thing I have learned is that the small group (less than 10) of perpetual malcontents on DU who happen to be gay or "gay supporters" who believe that they speak for all gay people do not.

During the Rick Warren foolishness (DAMN I can't believe we are still talking about this man) there were every bit as many gay members on DU who were absolutely gob-smacked over the hatefulness and divisiveness by a small number within their midst. They spoke out and as punishment for their "sins" of free thought, were called every dumb-assed, third grade name you could think of from "Aunt Thomasina" to "house gay." (And why so many gay epithets have their roots in black culture is a discussion for another day.)

There are many gays here on DU and in the world at large who, like many heterosexuals, acknowledge the progress being made and are hopeful that progress will continue. The gay community is as diverse of thought and opinion as any other. And the ones here bashing EVERYBODY gay and straight are no more representative of that community as Rick Warren is representative of all men of religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-31-09 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #118
120. That wasn't me! But thanks for your input
But what you wrote is so true and powerful. I'm not even sure that the small group of perpetual malcontents, btw, who purport to speak on behalf of the GLBT community are even gays or lesbians. There was a weird thread in the GLBT forum in which a surprising number of them identified themselves as straight supporters of GLBT rights. It was bizarre.

But you are certainly correct that the "real world" community is diverse, and none of my gay or lesbian friends in the real world take the kinds of positions I've seen here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-31-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #120
121. Yikes! Sorry about that Hamden!
You and Honeycomb have been the only posters in this thread with any real knowledge or insight. I guess I got you two confused!

:blush:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #71
81. Discrimination vs. organized protest.
Discrimination against gay men and women has a very long history.

The ability to rise up and organize against institutionalized prejudice and bigotry may be a 20th century phenomenon, which only says that with the heightened awareness of various human rights movements in the 20th century, the fight for gay human rights is long over due and resisting it in the name of some arbitray decree by an outsider that this or that group should wait longer, is just another form of righwing ideology and argument and suppression.

It also suggests that historically, bigotry based on sexuality may be more ingrained than bigotry based on other variables.

As usual, your understanding of history, especially for gay rights, is flawed, oddly, in your own favor:

>>In the United States, as early as the turn of the twentieth century several groups worked in hiding to avoid persecution to advance the rights of homosexuals, but little is known about them (Norton 2005).

A better documented group is Henry Gerber’s Society for Human Rights (formed in Chicago in 1924), which was quickly suppressed (Bullough 2005). Serving as an enlisted man in occupied Germany after World War I, Gerber had learned of Magnus Hirschfeld’s pioneering work. Upon returning to the U.S. and settling in Chicago, Gerber organized the first documented public homosexual organization in America and published two issues of the first gay publication, entitled Friendship and Freedom.

>snip>
In the late 1960s, the more socialistic "liberation" philosophy that had started to create different factions within the civil rights, Black Power, anti-war, and feminist movements, also engulfed the homophile movement. A new generation of young gay and lesbian Americans saw their struggle within a broader movement to dismantle racism, sexism, western imperialism, and traditional mores regarding drugs and sexuality. This new perspective on Gay Liberation had a major turning point with the Stonewall riots in 1969.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States

<<


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #64
80. Thanks for calling some of us youthful, but you are wrong about history
gay civil rights is NOT a few years old. Your awareness of gay civil rights may be a few years old.

Where did you find this rule:

"So your movement is doing very well. Don't expect sympathies for a group that is doing very well and making heretofore unheard of strides. But remember, you still have to wait for the Baby Boomers to die before the full basket of rights, in practical terms, is given/taken.'

What here-to-for unheard of strides? DADT? DOMA? Laws restricting gay men and women from adoption or foster parenting?

Where does it say that civil rights should extend to only certain segments of society and those experiencing injustice have no right to demand equal treatment under the law today?

It's obvious we don't have your "sympathies" but then you misunderstand, we are asking for justice, not sympathy.

I personally would not expect every progressive to be free of all prejudice, or even to have "sympathy" but, I do expect progressives to stand up for the rights of for equality and justice and to stand up for those who are oppressed--even if you do not see GLBTQ people as being oppressed and doing very well-- even when the statistics say you are wrong.

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said.

Source: Reuters, March 31, 1998.
Coretta Scott King, speaking four days before the 30th anniversary of her husband's assassination, said Tuesday the civil rights leader's memory demanded a strong stand for gay and lesbian rights.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuiderelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #64
82. WTF? "the gay rights movement began a few years ago" ???
Seems to me that you're suggesting that since the gay movement has only been visible to some people for a seemingly short time (even though it's been around at least as long as women have been fighting for equality), that we should expect to just wait a century or so for equality. WTF kind of response is that? Why should I wait until after my death to have the same rights as you? Because women fought for a hundred years to get the right to vote?

Instant gratification? I've been alive for 46 years, and I've been paying taxes for 34 years, and I've been fighting for equality as a gay American for over 25 years, and I STILL do not have the same rights as you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #64
111. So, because it took women and blacks hundreds of years to get civil rights,
it should take gays just as long? You don't think we should try to do a little better than that? Your comment about youth and instant gratification is quite possibly the single biggest steaming pile of crap I've ever read here. And that's saying something.

Oh, and I'm a middle aged woman, by the way, since you seem to hold that in some regard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
69. k&r.
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 09:21 AM by Starry Messenger
"But I do ask that just once, some of you who have all the rights of an American citizen put yourself in the shoes of some who don't. Put yourself in the place of the person with glacoma who faces arrest and financial ruin on the one hand or blindness on the other. Put yourself in the place of the gay man or lesbian woman who has to watch his or her partner go without insurance because a bigotted majority just says no. Put yourself in the place of those who want us totally out of Iraq in a year as promised and face a recall if we aren't out soon enough."

I took this away as the main point to your post. This post is about listening to people here on DU, I think. People's personal stories are the best reason to be here. They are key to understanding.


edit: arg, repetition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
83. I'm confused. I though it was health care and Mary Jane at this juncture.
I guess if we need to be reminded that the Pres'nit is a homophobe to lots of people here, I guess we should drag up the terrible sexist stuff he did to Hillary, too.

:shrug:

After all, WE'RE DEMOCRATS!!!


We HAVE to shit the nest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
butterfly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
87. What have never understood about this issue is..
Didn't someone have a bill that said gays could have civil unions and gain all of the benefits of being married? I don't understand why this wasn't accepted. Is this all about a word "Marriage" if this is not the case please explain it too me because I don't get it.

I also don't understand why gay marriage/civil unions has to be a the top of the agenda as though it is the major issue facing the country. I don't get it, did he say he wasn't going to do anything about it. I am quite sure it is on the list somewhere with all of the things he has to do..I usually don't post on this issue because some in the GLBT community get so angry when you ask questions as though you are attacking them because you ask a question...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #87
90. Uh oh!
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 02:07 PM by HamdenRice
:popcorn:

Yes if you are in favor of civil unions, you are considered a bigot.

If you are in favor of full marriage equality, but believe that those who support full legal equality through civil unions are not bigots, you are a bigot.

That means that if you don't consider the Democratic Party, Obama, Biden and Clinton bigots, you are a bigot.

That's the official position of a small clique that is louder than they are numerous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #87
91. Would you accept it if blacks had civil unions and whites had marriage?
If all rights were the same would that be acceptable? On top of that civil unions aren't the same. Most companies refuse to accept them as equivalent unless forced to do so, the IRS doesn't accept them as the same, ICE doesn't accept them as the same, pretty much no one does (including the census). But my broader point is that gays currently have no rights at all in wide swaths of the country. I live in NC, we have no employment protection, no housing protection, no relationship protection, we can't even pass anti bully legislation to protect gay kids. Obama has done close to nothing, and there are some things he could do by executive order, to change any anti gay policy of the federal government. The Salvation Army still gets to take my money via taxes but refuse to serve gay or employ gays. The Red Cross (and all other blood banks) is forced to forbid gays from donating blood, Obama could end that today by executive order. Immigration judges send gays back to be persecuted in their homelands, Obama could end that tomorrow by executive order. He hasn't done any of it. Imagine if he hadn't changed the Mexico city rules in regards to abortion or the conscious rule for providers, he would be pilloried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. "anti bully legislation to protect gay kids. Obama has done close to nothing, "
You realize that's state law, right?

The president cannot pass a state gay rights protection statute. Heck, the president can't pass any statute, which is generally the role of Congress.

If and only if a federal equal protection right for GLBT communities is recognized by the Supreme Court or Congress and the states (via federal constitutional amendment) could the president submit federal gay rights protection legislation to Congress which would partially override states' absence of such protection.

Did you expect all that to happen in the first 100 days?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. Yes I do
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 02:47 PM by dsc
and those who can read, unlike you who chose to lie about what people post, can readily see what I say Obama could have done. He could have ended the FDA ban on gay blood, he could have ended the practice of ICE judges sending gays back to be persecuted to name two examples I sited. Oh, and the feds could condition federal money upon banning anti gay bullying as they currently do for making schools let military recruiters have access to student information.

On edit here are the words that confused you so greatly.

Obama has done close to nothing, and there are some things he could do by executive order, to change any anti gay policy of the federal government. The Salvation Army still gets to take my money via taxes but refuse to serve gay or employ gays. The Red Cross (and all other blood banks) is forced to forbid gays from donating blood, Obama could end that today by executive order. Immigration judges send gays back to be persecuted in their homelands, Obama could end that tomorrow by executive order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. by the way for someone who dares to lecture others about intellectual honesty
you sure are liberal with slicing and dicing quotes, editing posts and then falsely accusing people of ducking questions, and other slimy debate tactics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
butterfly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #91
95. So its all about a word..
and it isn't about having these rights. Most companies would have to accept them as law,equivalent,the same if it is included in the bill. Like I said, its all about a word..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. tell that to gay couples in new jersey
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 02:55 PM by dsc
who have had a devil of a time getting companies to accept civil unions. that is why no less than the New Jersey legislature has come to the conclusion that they don't work. Maybe you know more seeing as you are gay and have had to deal with this (no wait you aren't gay, you don't live in NJ and haven't had to deal with this so you know squat) but I don't think you do.

On edit here is a link to the commission (it wasn't the legislature)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/nyregion/20union.html

Now again, I am sure you know more than they do, after all they only studied the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
butterfly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #96
100. Why are you angry because I am asking you questions...
and have come to the conclusion that it is only about a word. Don't you think that the President or the congress can mandate that companies accept civil unions? If these same companies don't accept civil unions what makes you think they will accept it if it were deemed a marriage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. did you even read my link
or for that matter the post before the one I gave the link in where I explained it was more than a word? The apparent fact you did neither might, just might be why I am a little angry. It is one thing to ask questions and read the answers, it is quite another to ask questions and ignore the answers. You are quite apparently doing the second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
butterfly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. I am for gay rights but...
from what I have read, though some states have passed the law it seems that it will have to be mandated for the whole country and all institutions in our country.

However,I don't think that it will matter if it is passed or not for some people just as the laws for blacks don't seem to matter for some people and some institutions. In some ways blacks are still treated the same as though those laws haven't even been passed.


Yes, we have a black president and but that doesn't change a thing for a lot of Americans because they have lost their minds because they can't accept that and they can't accept the fact that some people are gay and they can't change that..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
92. There's a bigdifference between disagreeing on one or several issues and
damning him for every move and comment he makes. The first group are normal Democrats who of course aren't going to agree all the time; the second are PUMA trolls. I'm sorry if anyone has confused you with the second group!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
99. I’m gay, that doesn’t make me an Obama critic.

I am speaking only for myself here.

I do reserve the right to be critical of specific government policies as they may come up, from time to time.

That does not make me an Obama critic. That does mean I am exercising my rights as a citizen.

While I have made fairness, civil rights and justice for all Americans, and specifically GLBTQ Americans a top priority, I do not expect that everyone else will do so. I do hope that other progressives will be supportive of issues of justice and fairness for all Americans, including gay civil rights.

As far as being an Obama critic, I reject that notion. I cannot even contemplate what today would be like with repugs like the last ticket in power, with a President McLame and VP Sarah Pukeass.

Yes, there are other issues of grave importance to me as well. The economy, unemployment, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the environment, to name a few.

However, for the first time in 8 long years, I no longer feel that I have to watch the chickencoop 24/7/12/365 because the foxes are robbing it down to the bare floor.

So, this maybe a good time in history, with competent and exceptional leadership in the white house, to let the gnawing worry about running this nation from my recliner go and to turn over day to day operations to our President. :evilgrin:

At the same time there is much work to be done in terms of justice for all Americans and if those of us who feel the scourge of discrimination and bigotry the most, because of our day to day lives, don’t do it, then how do we expect anyone else to fight the fight for us.

If you don’t find sympathy for gays in your heart, that’s fine for now. Attitudes are complex. Attitudes may take generations to change due to oppressive and unjust laws and institutionalized bigotry from local and State's governments, including members of our own party and the majority of organized religion, this creates a very high social burden of oppression and intolerance to overcome.

That is why for me, at this time in history, the fight is for equality under laws.

The law should be applied to all people the same way, whether you like them or not. That is only fair.

If you don’t understand the difference between CU’s and equal marriage rights and you are a progressive, please educate yourself on this important matter. This has been covered here on DU for many months, there are numerous threads archived on this topic. The best ally is an informed ally.

If you believe that gays are a privileged and affluent group known for parties, bars, parades and the gentrification and take over of urban neighborhoods, then please learn the facts that show these stereotypes to be a lie.

Please educate yourself about the negative impact of prejudice and bigotry, about how such hate causes stress, depression, ill health, poverty, lack of health care coverage and bigotry by health care providers and so on. The studies are out there and have been discussed on DU, in fact, recently. Also, please note that the same types of outcomes have been shown for other minorities and especially people with double or triple minority status. For example, among the most impoverished in this country are women, who are lesbians and who are of color.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #99
102. Here's some data on the impact of prejudice on health.
Here are some articles on this topic:

“Sexual orientation is an important demographic factor that has been suggested to affect engagement in health-related behaviors, and interventions developed for the general population of women are likely to be less effective in assisting sexual minority women to make healthy choices. We conducted seven focus groups with sexual minority women (i.e., lesbians and bisexual women) to explore issues, including barriers and motivations, regarding healthy eating, physical activity, and weight in this population. The participants reported a wide range of levels of engagement in health-related behaviors. While nearly all of the participants reported some awareness of the importance of good dietary choices, the majority reported some confusion about what constitutes a healthy diet. (1)

Another variable is socioeconomic status. “Body weight is inversely related to socioeconomic status (SES) in women in the United States (U.S.). Reasons for the social differential in weight are poorly understood. (2)”

When reporting on obesity in lesbians, the socioeconomic status of the gay women being studied has to be taken into consideration.

Being a woman is a risk factor for weight gai and obesity, certainly, and even when a higher socioeconomic group with higher levels of education are studied, obesity is a concern for later in life, as shown in a report on healthy, active, college women.

“The years between ages 18 and 24 are a critical time in the lives of young women. During this period, they develop physical activity and nutrition habits that will affect their health across the life span....Health teaching in the areas of physical activity and dietary habits may be useful even in young women who appear to be healthy, are of normal weight, and are physically active. Poor dietary habits, if unattended, may eventually contribute to the development of obesity and related illnesses.(3)”

Another study looked at childhood sexual abuse and obesity in lesbians and found a positive correlation.

“Our goal was to examine the association between childhood sexual abuse (CSA) and obesity in a community-based sample of self-identified lesbians. ...After adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, and education, women who reported CSA were more likely to be obese (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.4) or severely obese (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-5.2).

DISCUSSION: Our findings, in conjunction with the available literature, suggest that CSA may be an important risk factor for obesity. Understanding CSA as a factor that may contribute to weight gain or act as a barrier to weight loss or maintenance in lesbians, a high-risk group for both CSA and obesity, is important for developing successful obesity interventions for this group of women.” (4)

This study did confirm a higher rate of obesity in lesbians and found that it was “more than twice the odds of (being) overweight” but did not study causation.

“Adjusted multinomial logistic regression analyses showed lesbians have more than twice the odds of overweight (odds ratio =2.69; 95% confidence interval =1.40, 5.18) and obesity (OR=2.47; 95% CI=1.19, 5.09) as heterosexual women. Bisexuals and women who reported their sexual orientation as "something else" (besides heterosexual, lesbian, or bisexual) showed no such increase in the odds of overweight and obesity.” (5)


This study looked at correlates of obesity and exercise frequency among lesbians and bisexual women. BMI = body mass index.

“Prevalence of overweight and obesity among lesbians varied by racial/ethnic background. Higher BMI was associated with older age, poorer health status, lower educational attainment, relationship cohabitation, and lower exercise frequency. Higher BMI, perceptions of being overweight, and reporting a limiting health condition were identified as independent predictors of infrequent exercise.” (6)

Going back to the issue of sexual abuse, here is a study that shows “disparities in child abuse victimization in lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women.”

“A growing body of research documents multiple health disparities by sexual orientation among women, yet little is known about the possible causes of these disparities. One underlying factor may be heightened risk for abuse victimization in childhood in lesbian and bisexual women.”

“Results showed strong evidence of elevated frequency, severity, and persistence of abuse experienced by lesbian and bisexual women. Comparing physical abuse victimization occurring in both childhood and adolescence. This study documents prevalent and persistent abuse disproportionately experienced by lesbian and bisexual women.” (7)

What about the psychological impact of discrimination against sexual minorities?
This study showed that, “lesbians and gay men are at higher risk for stress-sensitive psychiatric disorders than are heterosexual persons.” (8) Whether there is a direct correlation to health risks such as obesity is speculative at this stage of my review, but it does seem intuitively likely.

“Homosexual and bisexual individuals more frequently than heterosexual persons reported both lifetime and day-to-day experiences with discrimination. Approximately 42% attributed this to their sexual orientation, in whole or part. Perceived discrimination was positively associated with both harmful effects on quality of life and indicators of psychiatric morbidity in the total sample. Controlling for differences in discrimination experiences attenuated observed associations between psychiatric morbidity and sexual orientation. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of discrimination may underlie recent observations of greater psychiatric morbidity risk among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals.” (8)

It seems the obesity in the lesbian population is linked to other variables, there are probably more, but this is all I could find in the time I had to search:

socioeconomic status
education level
lack of education or information about good dietary habits
a past history of sexual abuse
discrimination



Citations:

(1) Women Health. 2006;44(1)79-93.
Healthy eating, exercise, and weight: impressions of sexual minority women.Bowen DJ, Balsam KF, Diergaarde B, Russo M, Escamilla GM.
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109-1024, USA.

Obesity is a risk factor for multiple disease outcomes, including cancer and cardiovascular disease. A healthy diet and physically active lifestyle can prevent obesity. Sexual orientation is an important demographic factor that has been suggested to affect engagement in health-related behaviors, and interventions developed for the general population of women are likely to be less effective in assisting sexual minority women to make healthy choices. We conducted seven focus groups with sexual minority women (i.e., lesbians and bisexual women) to explore issues, including barriers and motivations, regarding healthy eating, physical activity, and weight in this population. The participants reported a wide range of levels of engagement in health-related behaviors. While nearly all of the participants reported some awareness of the importance of good dietary choices, the majority reported some confusion about what constitutes a healthy diet. In contrast, the majority of participants seemed clearly aware that regular exercise was important for good health. These data can guide the design of effective intervention strategies to improve health behaviors in sexual minority women.

(2) Women Health. 2006;44(1):57-78.
Obesity in low-income rural women: qualitative insights about physical activity and eating patterns.Bove CF, Olson CM.
Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.

Body weight is inversely related to socioeconomic status (SES) in women in the United States (U.S.). Reasons for the social differential in weight are poorly understood. This investigation sought to understand overweight and obesity from the perspective of low-income mothers living in rural New York State, focusing in particular on challenges to maintaining a healthy weight that may be unique to rural poverty. In-depth interviews with 28 women, who were interviewed 3 times over a 3-year period, were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using the constant comparative method. Findings suggest that transportation difficulties confined some women to their homes, which were physical settings offering little opportunity for physical activity. Food insecurity and associated fluctuating household food supplies contributed to disordered eating patterns and to perceptions of dietary deprivation that affected food intake. Rural isolation contributed to negative emotional states that some women alleviated by eating. This research elucidates factors contributing to obesity among rural, economically disadvantaged women, highlighting the interplay between the structural constraints imposed by rural poverty and women's physical activity, eating patterns, body image, and weight. These insights further the understanding of social inequalities in health and could inform the design of future research aimed at improving the health status of low-income women and families.

(3) J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2004 Jul;16(7):291-9.
Obesity and physical activity in college women: implications for clinical practice.Clement JM, Schmidt CA, Bernaix LW, Covington NK, Carr TR.
School of Nursing, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, USA.

PURPOSE: To investigate the relationships between levels of physical activity, health attitudes and behaviors, and specific health indicators in women attending college. DATA SOURCES: A convenience sample of 116 college women, ages 18 to 24 years, participated in this research study at a moderate-sized midwestern university. The data were obtained through a self-administered questionnaire; trained technicians collected physiological measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The young women in this study had, on average, normal body mass indexes (BMIs) and reported activity levels consistent with or greater than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/American College of Sports Medicine guidelines. Items used to assign participants into the appropriate stage of the transtheoretical model of change were correlated with participants' perceived personal physical activity levels. Similarly, the participants, whose scores fell in the higher stages of the transtheoretical model, reported greater levels of physical activity; consumption of more fruits, vegetables, and water; and less consumption of high-fat/high-calorie foods. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The years between ages 18 and 24 are a critical time in the lives of young women. During this period, they develop physical activity and nutrition habits that will affect their health across the life span. Because of the sometimes insidious development of major health problems, young women's current health status may not accurately reflect the possible long- term results of negative health habits. Nurse practitioners (NPs) have many opportunities to identify and address major factors that, if unattended, may threaten the life-long health status of women. Health teaching in the areas of physical activity and dietary habits may be useful even in young women who appear to be healthy, are of normal weight, and are physically active. Poor dietary habits, if unattended, may eventually contribute to the development of obesity and related illnesses.

(4) Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007 Apr;15(4):1023-8.
Association of childhood sexual abuse with obesity in a community sample of lesbians.Aaron DJ, Hughes TL.
Department of Health and Physical Activity, 155 Trees Hall, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to examine the association between childhood sexual abuse (CSA) and obesity in a community-based sample of self-identified lesbians. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A diverse sample of women who self-identified as lesbian was recruited from the greater Chicago metropolitan area. Women (n=416) were interviewed about sexual abuse experiences that occurred before the age of 18. Self-reported height and weight were used to calculate BMI and categorize women as normal-weight (<25.0 kg/m2), overweight (25.0 to 29.9 kg/m2), obese (30.0 to 39.9 kg/m2), or severely obese (>or=40 kg/m2). The relationship between CSA and BMI was examined using multinomial logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 31% of women in the sample reported CSA, and 57% had BMI>or=25.0 kg/m2. Mean BMI was 27.8 (+/-7.2) kg/m2 and was significantly higher among women who reported CSA than among those who did not report CSA (29.4 vs. 27.1, p<0.01). CSA was significantly related to weight status; 39% of women who reported CSA compared with 25% of women who did not report CSA were obese (p=0.004). After adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, and education, women who reported CSA were more likely to be obese (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.4) or severely obese (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-5.2). DISCUSSION: Our findings, in conjunction with the available literature, suggest that CSA may be an important risk factor for obesity. Understanding CSA as a factor that may contribute to weight gain or act as a barrier to weight loss or maintenance in lesbians, a high-risk group for both CSA and obesity, is important for developing successful obesity interventions for this group of women.

(5) 1: Am J Public Health. 2007 Jun;97(6):1134-40. Epub 2007 Apr 26. Links
Overweight and obesity in sexual-minority women: evidence from population-based data.Boehmer U, Bowen DJ, Bauer GR.
Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Boston University, Boston, Mass 02118, USA.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether lesbians have higher rates of overweight and obesity than women of other sexual orientations. METHODS: We compared population estimates of overweight and obesity across sexual orientation groups, using data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. RESULTS: Adjusted multinomial logistic regression analyses showed lesbians have more than twice the odds of overweight (odds ratio =2.69; 95% confidence interval =1.40, 5.18) and obesity (OR=2.47; 95% CI=1.19, 5.09) as heterosexual women. Bisexuals and women who reported their sexual orientation as "something else" (besides heterosexual, lesbian, or bisexual) showed no such increase in the odds of overweight and obesity. CONCLUSIONS: Lesbian women have a higher prevalence of overweight and obesity than all other female sexual orientation groups. This finding suggests that lesbians are at greater risk for morbidity and mortality linked to overweight and obesity. This finding also highlights the need for interventions within this population

(6)Prev Med. 2003 Jun;36(6):676-83.
Correlates of overweight and obesity among lesbian and bisexual women.Yancey AK, Cochran SD, Corliss HL, Mays VM.
Department of Community Health Sciences, UCLA School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies find lesbians at greater risk for overweight and obesity than heterosexual women. While this may reflect differences in attitudes concerning weight and body shape, little is actually known about risk factors within this group. This study examines correlates of obesity and exercise frequency among lesbians and bisexual women. METHODS: Data from a snowball sample (n = 1209) of lesbians/bisexual women living in Los Angeles Country were utilized. Overweight was defined as BMI >/= 25 kg/m(2); obesity as BMI >/= 30. Associations between sociodemographic characteristics, exercise frequency, health indicators, and weight-related measures were evaluated to identify independent predictors of BMI and exercise frequency. RESULTS: Prevalence of overweight and obesity among lesbians varied by racial/ethnic background. Higher BMI was associated with older age, poorer health status, lower educational attainment, relationship cohabitation, and lower exercise frequency. Higher BMI, perceptions of being overweight, and reporting a limiting health condition were identified as independent predictors of infrequent exercise. Women were generally quite accurate in self-perceptions of weight status. CONCLUSIONS: Correlates of overweight and obesity among lesbians and bisexual women are generally comparable to those observed in studies of heterosexual women. Evidence that lesbians' higher BMI is associated with higher levels of fitness is not supported.

(7) J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008 May;17(4):597-606.
Disparities in child abuse victimization in lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women in the Nurses' Health Study II.Austin SB, Jun HJ, Jackson B, Spiegelman D, Rich-Edwards J, Corliss HL, Wright RJ.
Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of research documents multiple health disparities by sexual orientation among women, yet little is known about the possible causes of these disparities. One underlying factor may be heightened risk for abuse victimization in childhood in lesbian and bisexual women. METHODS: Using survey data from 63,028 women participating in the Nurses' Health Study II, we investigated sexual orientation group differences in emotional, physical, and sexual abuse in childhood and adolescence. Multivariable log-binomial and linear regression models were used to examine orientation group differences in prevalence and severity of abuse, with heterosexual as the referent and controlling for sociodemographics. RESULTS: Results showed strong evidence of elevated frequency, severity, and persistence of abuse experienced by lesbian and bisexual women. Comparing physical abuse victimization occurring in both childhood and adolescence, lesbian (30%, prevalence ratio 1.61, 95% confidence interval 1.40, 1.84) and bisexual (24%, PR 1.26, 95% CI 1.00, 1.60) women were more likely to report victimization than were heterosexual women (19%). Similarly, comparing sexual abuse victimization occurring in both age periods, lesbian (19%, PR 2.16, 95% CI 1.80, 2.60) and bisexual (20%, PR 2.29, 95% CI 1.76, 2.98) women were more likely to report victimization than were heterosexual women (9%). CONCLUSIONS: This study documents prevalent and persistent abuse disproportionately experienced by lesbian and bisexual women.


(8)Am J Public Health. 2001 Nov;91(11):1869-76. Links
Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States.Mays VM, Cochran SD.
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles 90095-1563, USA.

OBJECTIVES: Recent studies suggest that lesbians and gay men are at higher risk for stress-sensitive psychiatric disorders than are heterosexual persons. We examined the possible role of perceived discrimination in generating that risk. METHODS: The National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States, a nationally representative sample of adults aged 25 to 74 years, surveyed individuals self-identifying as homosexual or bisexual (n = 73) or heterosexual (n = 2844) about their lifetime and day-to-day experiences with discrimination. Also assessed were 1-year prevalence of depressive, anxiety, and substance dependence disorders; current psychologic distress; and self-rated mental health. RESULTS: Homosexual and bisexual individuals more frequently than heterosexual persons reported both lifetime and day-to-day experiences with discrimination. Approximately 42% attributed this to their sexual orientation, in whole or part. Perceived discrimination was positively associated with both harmful effects on quality of life and indicators of psychiatric morbidity in the total sample. Controlling for differences in discrimination experiences attenuated observed associations between psychiatric morbidity and sexual orientation. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of discrimination may underlie recent observations of greater psychiatric morbidity risk among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals.
............


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. Part II, the impact of prejudice on access to health care and quality care
Poverty, lack of education, discrimination in employment, lack of health care insurance, stress related co-morbid conditions including depression and facing discriminatory health care patterns when seeking medial care hardly paint a picture of a privileged, affluent, minority.

These outcomes are not caused by sexual orientation, but rather the consequences of discrimination, and these same or similar outcomes are found when studying other oppressed minorities, with an underlying root cause in poverty and discrimination and not sexuality.

That's what I reminded of when fighting for gay rights.

............
Edited on Sun Mar-08-09 01:06 AM by bluedawg12
Am J Public Health. 2001 Apr;91(4):591-7.
Cancer-related risk indicators and preventive screening behaviors among lesbians and bisexual women.Cochran SD, Mays VM, Bowen D, Gage S, Bybee D, Roberts SJ, Goldstein RS, Robison A, Rankow EJ, White J.
Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Center for Health Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Box 951772, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772, USA.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined whether lesbians are at increased risk for certain cancers as a result of an accumulation of behavioral risk factors and difficulties in accessing health care. METHODS: Prevalence estimates of behavioral risk factors (nulliparity, obesity, smoking, and alcohol use), cancer screening behaviors, and self-reported breast cancer histories derived from 7 independently conducted surveys of lesbians/bisexual women (n = 11,876) were compared with national estimates for women. RESULTS: In comparison with adjusted estimates for the US female population, lesbians/bisexual women exhibited greater prevalence rates of obesity, alcohol use, and tobacco use and lower rates of parity and birth control pill use. These women were also less likely to have health insurance coverage or to have had a recent pelvic examination or mammogram. Self-reported histories of breast cancer, however, did not differ from adjusted US female population estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Lesbians and bisexual women differ from heterosexual women in patterns of health risk. These women would be expected to be at especially greater risk for chronic diseases linked to smoking and obesity.

............


Am Fam Physician. 2006 Jul 15;74(2):279-86.Links

Primary care for lesbians and bisexual women.Mravcak SA.
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Department of Family Medicine, New Brunswick 08903, USA. mravcak@umdnj.edu

For the most part, lesbians and bisexual women face the same health issues as heterosexual women, but they often have difficulty accessing appropriate care. Physicians can improve care for lesbians and bisexual women by acknowledging the potential barriers to care (e.g., hesitancy of physicians to inquire about sexual orientation and of patients to disclose their sexual behavior) and working to create a therapeutic physician-patient relationship. Taking an inclusive and nonjudgmental history and being aware of the range of health-related behaviors and medicolegal issues pertinent to these patients enables physicians to perform relevant screening tests and make appropriate referrals. Some recommendations, such as those for screening for cervical cancer and intimate partner violence, should not be altered for lesbians and bisexual women. Considerations unique to lesbians and bisexual women concern fertility and medico-legal issues to protect familial relationships during life changes and illness. The risks of suicidal ideation, self-harm, and depression may be higher in lesbians and bisexual women, especially those who are not open about their sexual orientation, are not in satisfying relationships, or lack social support. Because of increased rates of nulliparity, the risks of conditions such as breast and ovarian cancers also may be higher. The comparative rates of alcohol and drug use are controversial. Smoking and obesity rates are higher in lesbians and bisexual women, but there is no evidence of an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

.............

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #103
105. Pt. III (conclusion) Bigotry and prejudice are unhealthy for people targeted.
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 04:29 PM by bluedawg12
Self esteem is harmed by societal prejudice, it is especially harmful to gay and lesbian youth and it
impacts adults as well.

Discriminatory language in the media, or in open society ( Please recall the especially pernicious hate speech in the shrub years with Fatwell and his ilk, blaming acts of nature or the violent acts of man on gays)please note that discriminatory legislation and the clear message in society that one segment is less than human when they cannot enlist in the military or get drummed out for who they are and who they love, when people are denied equal access to the full rights and protection that marital status affords on both a State and Federal level, when hate crimes against gays (GLBTQ) and beatings and murder seem to approach the level of a sport, that these are not matters that pass unprocessed in the human psyche and soul and does damage to people who are the targets of such discrimination.

No, sadly, attitudes won't change tomorrow, but applying the law equally is another matter and should supersede personal antipathy, especially for people who are progressives and have a core belief in human rights.

........
Am J Community Psychol. 2003 Jun;31(3-4):313-28.
Stressor and resilience factors for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals confronting antigay politics. Russell GM, Richards JA.

Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, Amherst, Massachusetts 01004-2603,
When lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people encounter antigay campaigns and elections, they face explicit and implicit homophobic attacks. In order to understand the points of stress and the bases for resilience in the face of these attacks, we developed a 130-item quantitative survey on the basis of results of an earlier qualitative study. Three hundred, sixteen Colorado LGB people endorsed items representing sources of stress and sources of resilience associated with the campaign for and passage of an antigay referendum. Factor analyses of the results suggested 5 sources of stressors and 5 sources of resilience for LGB persons and their communities.

These types of messages undermine the basic value and humanity of LGB people.

It is reasonable to expect that exposure to such materials and to discussions about LGB rights can constitute a stressor for at least some LGB people, even when specific election outcomes favor LGB rights.

When election outcomes do not support equal rights for LGB people, an additional set of stressors may come into play.

An antigay electoral decision suggests to LGB people that they are not full members of the community; it may increase legal concerns in matters of employment and housing; it raises concerns that antigay votes will unleash broader forms of harassment and violence (Booth, 1992; Spring, 1992; Stepanek, 1992).

In addition, some LGB people, especially those who tend to deny the pervasiveness of homonegativity, may find their denial compromised (Russell, 2000).


.........

J Homosex. 2007;53(4):173-99.
The relation of social support, connectedness, and collective self-esteem to the psychological well-being of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth.Detrie PM, Lease SH.
Rhodes College, Memphis, TN

The present study extended the research on the mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) youth by testing the relationship of social support, social connectedness, and collective self-esteem to psychological well-being in a sample of 218 LGB youth. Perceived social support significantly predicted psychological well-being subscales; social connectedness and collective self-esteem contributed significantly to the psychological well-being of the LGB participants when controlling for perceived social support.

......

Psychol Bull. 2003 Sep;129(5):674-97.
Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence.Meyer IH.
Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University

In this article the author reviews research evidence on the prevalence of mental disorders in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (LGBs) and shows, using meta-analyses, that LGBs have a higher prevalence of mental disorders than heterosexuals.

The author offers a conceptual framework for understanding this excess in prevalence of disorder in terms of minority stress--explaining that stigma, prejudice, and discrimination create a hostile and stressful social environment that causes mental health problems.

The model describes stress processes, including the experience of prejudice events, expectations of rejection, hiding and concealing, internalized homophobia, and ameliorative coping processes. This conceptual framework is the basis for the review of research evidence, suggestions for future research directions, and exploration of public policy implications.
.....

Edit for my usual typos :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
butterfly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. I agree with that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #106
108. I believe and I do hope that there is more that unites us
as progressives than that which divides us.

Like I said, for the first time in eight years, I don't feel like I have to watch the news like a hawk, exactly because I have confidence in our President and his administration. This is a good time for many of us to work on issues that have been sidelined under chimper, or which he actually used as "wedge issues" to divide us.

There are numerous issues that face the nation and the world today, I think we will do better as a united front, than as a house divided.

That doesn't mean there won't be debate, but it sure doesn't mean a repug should come any closer to power than buying a post card with a pic of 1600 on the front. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
107. Obama never said he would have us totally out of Iraq in a yr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marrah_G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
114. Unfortunately those whom you are speaking to will never listen.
After a year of being allowed to bully others, they feel this is THEIR website and everyone should just leave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
biopowertoday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-31-09 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #114
119. Well said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
116. The Republicans are a lot worse
Where would you be if McCrook were in office today?

Criticizing McCrook any harder than Obama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC