Why do "gay" issues get as much attention on DU as the resolution..?

[kentuck]

or the war in Iraq, or other "major" issues that concern everyone? There seems to be almost an obsession with the sexuality of one group of people. Does that help or hurt gays to discuss these issues all the time? Personally, I guess I am more obsessed with the damage that George W Bush is causing our nation, rather than the sex lives of anyone. Can someone explain?

[meegbear]

1. Because the squeeaky wheel gets the grease ...

and over the past few weeks, nay months, many gay-related items have come up.

[Goblinmonger]

170. You do know why the squeaky wheel gets the grease, don't you?

Because it needs it. That's why it is squeaking. If one of your wheels on your car starts to squeal, most likely the brakes are steel on steel or the bearings have not grease and again we have steel on steel.

If you couldn't tell, I hate that cliche.

[Zhade]

224. I'm still waiting for an answer as to why our struggle SHOULDN'T get as much attention.

EDIT: Oh, never mind, I got my answer - our rights are a "minor" issue.

Wow.

[Goblinmonger]

245. It's amazing

how quickly people throw others to the back of the bus.

[leftofthedial]

2. because we're all homophobic

haven't you heard?

[Bluebear]

46. No not all but a damn lot of us are.

Haven't you noticed?

[leftofthedial]

54. no, but I've been told

over and over and over

[foreigncorrespondent]

56. Oh that is a riot!!!

I don't recall seeing anyone say; "everyone at DU is homophobic!" Can you please point me in the direction of where those exact words were said?

[xchrom]

it's about sex to you, perhaps.

it's about my place in this world to me.

[kentuck]

4. Why do we talk about "homosexuality" then?

Why not talk about "human rights"? Why does it have to be framed in sexual terms??

[redqueen]

8. Because the flagrant attacks are on the rights of homosexuals?

Seriously... you don't see that?

Bans on gay marriage? Bans on gay adoption? Ads mocking them and denigrating them?

How the fuck does this not register on people's "wrong-o-meters"?

[jonnyblitz]

12. because we are talking about the human rights OF homosexuals

This is NOT rocket science. jesus christ.

[Bluebear]

47. I think I am hearing "lighten up" about to be sung again. nt

[Unvanguard]

14. Obviously because people are being denied human rights

and respectful treatment because of their sexual orientation.

Usually, when there's a problem, you actually have to TALK about it in order to do something about it.

Sorry if this makes you uncomfortable....

:eyes:

[Marie26]

53. Huh?

Because it's about human rights for homosexuals. I've got no idea what that post means.

[pink-o]

97. Try this little experiment...

...substitute "African American" and "Civil Rights" for "Gay" and "Sexuality".

This is the way it works: it is SOCIETY that discriminates on the basis of race or sexual orientation. It is SOCIETY that frames the civil rights battle around those things. The group of marginalised, disenfranchised people are merely reacting to the stupidity of those who would love them JUST FINE if they weren't Black, weren't Gay, weren't Jewish, et al.

My gay friends are just sayin', y'know? It's unenlightened Hetero people who seem to have the problem with it!

Anyway, can I just ask who the fuck cares who's fucking whom??? If you don't like it, don't flirt with someone gay, okay? Besides, most of the motley, badly dressed straight men who're totally homophobic don't attract gays anyway!

[ThomCat]

104. Because we are targetted and singled out

because of our sexuality, and ignoring that doesn't make it stop.

[Left Is Write]

188. Because heterosexuals aren't, as a group, being denied civil rights

nor being targeted for hate.

[Zhade]

218. You're part of the problem, with your use of the term "gay issues".

We're being SPECIFICALLY attacked - you didn't expect us to defend ourselves?

[LostinVA]

71. Bingo -- it's about my LIFE

[ronnykmarshall]

142. You GO!

[Horse with no Name]

193. Indeed.

:hug:

[soleft]

3. Funny, I thought the obsession was with human rights, not sexuality

My bad I guess

[jobycom]

11. Bingo. Iraq, gay rights, abortion, minimum wage--it's about human rights.

And I completely reject the argument that gay rights only affects gays or lesbians. All human rights issues affect all people.

The Republicans have no respect for anyone but themselves. Sad that the OP implies the same flaw.

[Zhade]

219. BRAVO! Well-said.

Methinks the OP is just a little bit... uncomfortable with us queers.

[redqueen]

5. Oh how I wish you were kidding...

Look, this isn't about people's sex lives, it's about people's civil rights.

How would you feel if you were were told that you are a second class citizen, and that your lack of many basic civil rights was ok by the person speaking to you, and so pursuing those rights is just not a priority?

If you are obsessed with other things, post on those threads, discuss those issues... no one is trying to stop you from doing so.

But God Almighty, why post a thread declaring that you are bothered by those that consider their civil rights and the civil rights of their friends and loved ones worthy of discussion?

Un-frickin-believable...

*sigh*

[kentuck]

10. Don't twist my goddamn words!

I never said I was "bothered" by "those that consider their civil rights and the civil rights of their friends and loved ones are not worthy of discussion?" This is the type of bullshit response that gets me. No goddam wonder...

[redqueen]

13. You posted a thread...

asking why do so many people need to talk about it... right?

Why do that? Why?

[kentuck]

24. No. I asked why it gets as much attention as other issues.

But please. Please. Don't try to pull some kind of bullshit argument out of your ass trying to intimidate people into believing one way or another or they are some kind of bigot or such if they do not believe exactly as you. No. You cannot be for "civil unions" - you have to support gay marriage or you are not politcally correct enough for me. I don't buy it. Sorry.

[redqueen]

33. What?

How am I trying to intimidate you? Because I inferred from your words that you were bothered?

I don't care whether you support gay marriage or civil unions or what... what bothers me is that something motivated you to post a thread, wondering why the issue is getting so much attention... as if it is not worthy.

I don't know what your talking about in your post above, really. You must be recalling conversations with someone else and for some reason are trying to follow them up with me.

[Zhade]

221. Why SHOULDN'T our fight for equal rights get as much attention?

NT!

[patrice]

50. Perhaps kentuck is seeking reassurance.

Maybe he wants to know: If people who are concerned about Human Rights for ALL work for Human Rights for LGBT, do people who are concerned about Human Rights for LGBT care about and work for Human Rights for All.

The point being, one group's concerns are broadly defined, the other can appear to be narrowly defined and there is no way of knowing whether they are or not.

I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to establish somekind of mutuality in our efforts. It would be counter-productive to give too much time and effort to those who do not address root causes, but pick and choose wherever the benefit to themselves is greatest - IF - in fact that is actually happening. I for one, don't have a problem with trying to talk about it.

[redqueen]

70. The reality is that there is far more work to be done

than people to do it... it only makes sense that we pick the battles we care most about, and devote most of our time and energy to those. If we tried to tackle all problems simultaneously, we would burn out within months, if not weeks.

I do believe that all these groups should work with each other... but expecting people to 'be quiet' about the specific issues which most concern them... well I just don't see how that's right or defensible... not at all.

[patrice]

83. Perhaps I missed something. Did someone say LGBT should be quiet?

Of course they should NOT.

Yes, people are driven to act on their personal motivations. But if that is always and only their motivation, then all of us will always be reduced to chasing after whatever crumbs each of us can find, while the real deal goes down elsewhere.

I think it is practical to say to others, "If I do this for you, what assurance do I have that you will do ___________ for me/mine?" To me this is the only way we are going to surround the wrong doers and contain them.

[redqueen]

90. The OP asked why it gets so much attention...

which, to me, implies that the poster believes that it should not.

There was nothing in there about agreeing to work on other issues. So I don't know where that's coming from.

[patrice]

99. "to me" is the operative phrase there.

You are, of course, entitled to your perspective, but also, if you are entitled, so are others.

[redqueen]

100. Indeed...

doesn't look like I'm the only one who read it that way, either.

[patrice]

And of course the majority is right.

BTW: The majority thinks LGBT do not have the same rights as you and I, so dividing ourselves into those who don't approve of people who express their concerns about priorities, and those who want to know what the problems within "our" group(s) are is helpful.

[redqueen]

125. I didn't say that...

only saying it's not such a far-flung inference.

I don't think the divisiveness is helpful AT ALL. Then again, I didn't start this mess, complete with intentional uses of quotes to ensure maximum offensiveness.

[patrice]

136. Far flung or not, it could still be wrong.

And the only way any of us are ever going to be able to make those discernments is by making an effort to identify what we share and what we don't share. Shutting people down, before that is clear, aborts the whole effort to know who is REALLY with us and who isn't.

If anyone, including kentuck, is cherry picking Human Rights I want to make that determination for myself, just as I would want you to make it for yourself.

[redqueen]

138. Well since it was admitted

that the reason "gay" and "major" was in quotes, was so that people could nitpick them to death... I don't see the OP as exactly benign. I'm about *thisclose* to labeling it out and out flamebait.

[patrice]

163. There is often, and I might even say usually, quite a bit of difference

between intent and actual effect. Meat Stew for example.

I do not dispute your reaction to kentuck. You may be right - or - I may be right - or Both of us may be right. I just believe the truth IS inevitable, if we will let it reveal itself, and all of us do learn from the processes in which it reveals itself. So let those in error display their shortcomings and individuals will learn and possibly contribute to changing them.

Thanks for discussing this with me redqueen!

Hare Krsna! Hare Rama!

[redqueen]

164. Yes indeed...

the truth will out!

Peace, and thanks for the discussion! :hi:

[Zhade]

223. This thread is an attempt to discourage discussion of our due equal rights.

If someone asked, "Why are "black issues" getting so much attention", would THAT be an acceptable way of saying 'you guys complain too much'?

[patrice]

157. BTW, I actually approve of some seriously heavy emphasis on LGBT,

at strategically effective opportunities (what/when/how-ever the meta-group determines those), because people's attitudes about LGBT are manifestations of so much more.

At a strategically effective opportunity, Let's go ahead and separate the "goats from the sheep" (sorry, not a good metaphor I know, but you get the idea). We've got to build the "flock" first and we can't figure out how to do that if we keep attacking each other for **every** perceived slight. Some things you just have to grit your teeth and ignore for a while, as long as so-and-so is making your phone calls and writing your letters.

As you can see, I want to talk about who's doing what and for whom, which is why I responded to the OP.

[redqueen]

165. I appreciate your efforts,

and understand and share your concerns.

Thank you for providing some balance.

:)

[Zhade]

222. I sure hope that's not the OP's unasked question, because frankly it's insulting.

As if we, who are being denied our due equal rights, would somehow not care about equal rights for all.

Such a view would be, to put it delicately, a huge stinking crock of shit.

[ScreamingMeemie]

19. kentuck, here is what you said, quotation marks and all:

"Why do "gay" issues get as much attention on DU as the resolution..?
or the war in Iraq, or other "major" issues that concern everyone?"

Did you put the word major in quotes because you see "gay" (your quotes, not mine) issues as minor? I don't see where your words were twisted. I saw your post in the exact same light. Perhaps you didn't intend it to be that way, but that is the way it will be perceived. All of the issues you highlighted reference the same thing...human rights. End story. I am really put off by your use of the quotes.

[kentuck]

28. yes. I do see it as a minor issue.

As a matter of fact. That doesn't mean it's not important. But it is not as important as the life and death issues facing our country. I would not put it at the top of the list. Thank you. So, go ahead and call me all the names you wish.

[redqueen]

35. Who is calling you names? She didn't.. I didn't...

why are you so defensive?

All I'm saying is that fine, if it's not important to you, so be it... but for God's sake, why go out of your way to flaunt how little you care? What purpose does that serve? Honestly... why?

[Zhade]

226. The OP is using bigoted language.

"Minor". Yeah, that's what whites said about the Jim Crow laws, too.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

37. It can be life and death for gay people.

Just ask Matthew Shepherd.

[bigwillq]

199. Or the hundreds if not thousands

of young people who kill themselves or do bodily harm, escape with drugs and alcohol because they are gay.

[lukasahero]

51. It IS a life and death issue to the people living with the hate and homophobia

in this country. It certainly was to Matthew Sheppard.

How is it that the people who are supposed to be the ones fighting for civil rights don't fucking get this?

[foreigncorrespondent]

64. Have you forgotten about...

...the LGBTIQQ around the world who have lost their lives because of who they are? This is a matter of life and death for LGBTIQQ people each and every day. Don't you ever forget that.

[Katherine Brengle]

103. Minor to you perhaps.

Perhaps it doesn't directly effect YOUR quality of life, so therefore it is a minor issue for you.

That doesn't make it a minor issue to the world at large.

[ThomCat]

111. For many of us, it is a life or death issue.

It will determine how we are allowed to live our lives, or whether we are allowed to live our lives.

[Goblinmonger]

172. I'm sorry for that

I wish it wasn't that way. I try to confront those attitudes when I see them around me.

[ScreamingMeemie]

Where did I call you a name?

I called you on what you posted. I put human rights above all else.

[Zhade]

225. You think our equal rights under the law as taxpaying citizens is minor?

You think it's not a big deal that we're legally discriminated againt?

Well, at least I called you right on how much you support equal rights - which is none, if you don't support them for ALL of us.

How do you sleep at night?

[SharonRB]

31. I'm put off by the whole comment

:hi:

[ScreamingMeemie]

126. Hi Sharon!

:hi: Sometimes it's amazing.

[SharonRB]

160. It sure is.

[Bluebear]

78. "No goddam wonder"

Really?

[Zhade]

229. "You uppity faggots need to stop whining so much!"

NT!

[Zhade]

220. No, you just complained about our struggle getting attention.

NT!

[ThomCat]

107. Excellent response!

:applause:

[redqueen]

143. It was more inflammatory than I intended it to be...

I shouldn't have used the "ok by them" part... I should have said that it just wasn't a priority to this hypothetical person whom I obviously meant to be analogous to the author of the OP.

But yeah, you get what I was trying to say, I think. :)

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

6. "Gay" issues aren't about sex lives. They're about human rights.

If interracial marriage was still illegal, would you be posting that you don't care about the sex lives of interracial couples? No, because that'd be an assinine comment that really didn't have to deal with the issue at hand.

Same thing with "gay issues."

"Gay rights" are human rights, and human rights affect everyone.

[Name removed]

228. Deleted message

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

[Annces]

7. The personal is the political

Have you heard that one before?

[LaurenG]

9. No but it's obvious that it needs to be discussed

there is a ton of underlying "junk" that needs to be straightened out.

People are having their rights violated and they don't like the way it feels. The whole discussion has been brutal and hard to take but it seems necessary in order to move on.

It's also very painful to see how we treat each other.:(

[myrna minx]

15. Because people who are LGBT are treated like

second class citizens in this country. This isn't about sex, it is about fundamental human rights. I'm obsessed with equality.

[CBGLuthier]

16. Because in the last few weeks

There has been a seemingly endless stream of homophobic incidents in the news.

I have seen very little if any posting about gay people's sex lives. There have been a lot of posts about subtle and not so subtle homophobia but how you equate that to sex lives I can not understand.

And finally, so-called gay issues, which really are just a subset of human rights issues are very much part of the leftist liberal agenda. And that is a good thing. Because the RW would rather not care.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[ScreamingMeemie]

21. Bull shit Meat Stew... But nice of you to stop by and stir the pot.

Oh yeah, welcome to DU.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

25. Why you--you...non-homophobic heterosexual...

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Unvanguard]

34. If anyone came at you with a knife

you would probably be scared.

If you were ONLY scared when a gay person came at you with a knife, THEN you would be homophobic.

And, actually, no, "phobic" does not only mean "scared of."

[Meat Stew]

38. What else does it mean?

[Unvanguard]

41. As in "xenophobia", "Islamophobia", etc.

"prejudiced against."

Obviously this is not the clinical meaning of the term "phobia", but so what? The relevant consideration is conventional use.

[Meat Stew]

42. 10-4

Good to know...

[LostinVA]

74. It's the sociological -- not medicall -- meaning

[ronnykmarshall]

144. MMMMMMM Pizza!

[redqueen]

154. hehehehe

:7

[LostinVA]

73. Good God

How the heck is he still here???

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

23. Nope, I know a lot of straight posters who aren't homophobes.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

57. no but some people are. there are plenty of straight people who are NOT homophobic

[Starbucks Anarchist]

58. Really? I'm not a homophobe.

:eyes:

[patrice]

63. False dichotomy.

How old are you?

Your thinking is either im-mature or deliberately provocative.

If you want to talk about the rational probabilities whether any given hetero is really gay, fine. But don't start out by mischaracterizing the position you wish to debunk, because if you do, you lack credibility.

[lukasahero]

67. You're a real piece of work

Enjoy your stay.

[foreigncorrespondent]

68. Here ya go...

...stirring the pot yet again, while claiming to be all innocent in another thread.

Now follow up with your little threat from the other thread and bring on the Meat Stew Police. I am waiting.

[LostinVA]

77. Uh oh -- here comes the Meat Stew Hail Storm!!!

[foreigncorrespondent]

88. Damn it!!!!

I got my brolly out so I was prepared, and all I got for my trouble was a lousy dumping of crickets. ;)

[Goblinmonger]

173. Are you speaking English?

:rofl:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

89. He tore through Brisbane, leaving a confused boy in his path.

[LostinVA]

116. Hehehehhehehhe

In ruggers kit, no less.

[ronnykmarshall]

145. Good thing I wasn't sipping water!

:spray::rofl:

[DKRC]

If you aren't a woman, you're a misogynist - Makes about as much sense as your comment.

Welcome to DU!
:hi:

[pink-o]

113. Well, that's news to me!

I'm a straight woman who lives in the gay world capital, and gee--I don't think I've ever spewed out homophobic, hate-filled words on my friends.

The way I see it, what's put forth in love can never be shamed. It's hard enough to navigate thru the minefield of finding someone special to share sexuality and companionship--how dare we as humans think we should deny that to 15 percent of our own species???

[terrya]

114. The stupidest thing I've read here today.

And that's saying a lot this morning.

[bullwinkle428]

117. Make sure you check under your bed tonight for "the queers"...

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

141. BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

:spray:

:rofl:

[mainegreen]

18. Why do you have gay in quotes? n/t

[jonnyblitz]

20. I was wondering the same thing.

I seriously don't know why DO I wonder anymore on this fucking discussion board.

[myrna minx]

26. Good point. n/t

[Marie26]

32. "major" too? nt

[kentuck]

36. Because, personally, I don't see you as different from anyone else...

I put the quotes around the word to draw the distinction. You are no different. You are no better or worse than anyone else. You are equal. Accept it. Or would you rather be a martyr?

[redqueen]

39. Equal? My friend, you are completely wrong.

No, on the contrary, homosexuals are one of the few groups who are still legally and socially allowed to be treated as 'less than.'

Do you really not see that?

[Hosnon]

49. I don't think that's what s/he meant.

When someone says that all U.S. citizens are equal under the law, what is meant by that?

It means that we are equal...whether or not the law or society recognizes it yet. That is what the poster meant, in my opinion.

[redqueen]

65. But people don't post threads based on what this person

believes, personally.

They post threads about GLBT issues because they believe them worthy of discussion.

[Hosnon]

72. Ok.

Regardless, I think you misinterpreted what was meant. Do you thing it is a "completely wrong" belief that all citizens are equal (even if the law doesn't recognize it)?

[redqueen]

80. Of course not.

Do I think that makes it helpful in any way to put quotes around the word gay? Hell no. I think it's awful and downright inciteful.

I don't see how it explains putting quotes around word gay at all, as a matter of fact.

[Hosnon]

86. I'm not quite sure why the quotes were added either.

I took it as meaning that "gay" is a negative, but common (and therefore useful) term.

[kentuck]

105. Same reason I put "major" in quotes...

So it could be nitpicked to death, as proof of some underlying homophobia or hatred for gays, because somehow it is not politically correct enough to satisfy those with a persecution complex and a need for martyrdom. They need justification for their attacks on anyone that disagrees with them...on anything. They are looking to pounce on anyone that does not agree. Why?

[redqueen]

120. So I was right, it was just to be inciteful?

Worked like a charm.

[swimboy]

167. Like when I go crabbing and drop chicken necks in the water

Now I understand.

[FreeState]

185. You did a good job then

Just a little education for you here - Im guessing you do not know this or you would never put that in quotes - go look at any ant-gay news site or article. Now look for the word gay marriage or just the word gay. Notice how its always in quotes like its an non existent phenomenon that can't even be given a real word. They do this on purpose because they do not believe people are gay - they believe its an illness. Its insulting to say the least.

[TwilightZone]

60. I believe the key word was "personally".

No one harbors any illusions that homosexuals are granted equal protection under the law in this country.

[redqueen]

66. See post #65. n/t

[Marie26]

43. Not under the law

Discrimination against gays is still perfectly legal. Is it being a martyr to draw attention to that problem?

[libnnc]

44. I'd rather have access to my partner's health benefits

afforded to her by the federal government. She's a federal employee. I'm not considered a spouse so I'm not covered.

It's something I'm reminded of every day when she goes to work for the FAA.

[TahitiNut]

61. There's a nucleus of truth in what I hear you saying ... something I agree with.

It's VERY difficult, however, to describe the phenomena without people interpreting is as somehow demeaning their oppression and unjust treatment.

Once upon a time, maybe a year ago, I made an attempt to go at this far more obliquely. I started a thread where I asked whether I should feel as though I, as a blond, should regard myself as a DIFFERENT kind of human merely because some people engage in the "blond(e)s are dumb" mythology.

The point, as I see it, is whether we aren't COOPERATING with bigotry merely by accepting the subcategorization of human beings. It bothers me, too. While I generally and specifically regard all human beings as "we" - I never speak of humanity as an outsider - I also recognize, whether I agree or not, of any individual's right to regard themselves as affiliated in whatever fashion they choose.

At the same time, to ignore the prevalent and pervasive varieties of bigotry by failing to acknowledge those individuals most subjected to it due to their personal attributes is to hamper our ability to fight such bigotry. I personally see it as a moral dilemma ... however nuanced and difficult to describe.

(Even in posting this, I doubt I've been able to clearly describe the tyranny of diivision as I see it.)

[redqueen]

128. I *think* I get it...

If you'd like to try to re-state, I'd be interested to see what you're trying to say...

[TahitiNut]

147. I don't know how to say it more clearly.

I don't regard "them" as "them." I regard blacks as part of "we." I regard women as "we." I regard gays as "we."

Just as I regard (reaching for an example) redheads as "we." (I have blond hair.)

In other words, I steadfastly resist succumbing to the tyranny of division that's part of the myopic worldview of bigotry. I refuse to allow bigotry to impose such a worldview on my thinking.

But there's a moral dilemma.

I must, at the same time, acknowledge the "shared experience" of blacks, women, and gays that gives human beings with such attributes cause to affiliate and regard themselves as 'separate' from me - even as I choose to feel a kinship with ALL.

The fact of the matter is we are, each and every one of us, unique. We are, by and large, divided individually from one another in the uniqueness of our experiences. But it's in that sense of individual uniqueness that we have commonality. To elevate some wrongful regard of others to higher prominance seems to afford it greater power than it deserves.

As a Viet Nam veteran, I know something about a "shared experience" - one that tends to cause those having that experience to affiliate as 'other' - and being told to "get over it" and being told whether I have a "right" to relate to that experience. In fact, it's the feeling of alienation itself that appalls me - and succumbing to that alienation and division is something that I innately eschew.

[redqueen]

151. Okay then yes, I do get it...

how does that relate to a post like the OP?

I guess what is confusing me is what the 'nucleus of truth' is, in this case...

[TahitiNut]

159. I see it as a question of embracing our common humanity vs. our differences.

That's all. :shrug:

FWIW, I would hope that nobody equates what I said to the insane "I don't see black" pretense. When I say "we" it's not in any inbility to discern the wondrous variety of "we" - a variety that I revel in.

[redqueen]

162. I guess, to me...

the OP seems to be going completely against that truism re: commonality vs. differences... by calling out the so-called "other" for being too vocal about "their" issues.

[Zhade]

234. I understand your point. The OP does not appear to be predicated on a similar ideal.

It's more akin to saying "your 'special rights' aren't a big deal".

I think you give the OP more credit than is deserved.

[patrice]

177. Well said, again, TNut . . .

Thanks much for what you contribute to us.

There are no absolutes: not absolutely "unique"; not absolutely "the same", but degrees of one relative to degrees of the other, always changing within a range that is more or less characteristic of a given individual. Buckminster Fuller was right: I/we do seem to be verbs.

The real questions are who is this person and what is going on with him/her at this moment in this situation.

[TahitiNut]

179. Yep. I guess I was successfully "John Donne'd" a long time ago.

I don't regard myself (or anyone else) as an "island" - even in small clusters. I think of us all - each and every one of us - as a "part of the main."

[patrice]

184. Donne but not forgotten . . .

I resist my mystic tendencies, but appreciate Donne nonetheless. I think you can make the same case in basically physical terms and I find the connections very motivating.

[lumberjack_jeff]

197. Very well said. I'm tempted to recommend this thread for this post.

I wish I could express this viewpoint without being perceived as attempting to deny peoples experiences.

Global warming will be a tragedy for us all.
Expanding war in the middle east will be a tragedy for us all.
Failing to reform our medical insurance system will be a tragedy for us all.
Failing to curtail the imperial presidency will be a tragedy for us all.

It vexes me that holding these issues as of paramount importance places me at odds with those who identify with groups who are treated unjustly. To say that I find objectionable the accusation that I 'fear homosexuality' because of those priorities, is a gross understatement.

[Zhade]

235. Likewise, failing to secure equal rights for GLBT persons will endanger equal rights FOR ALL.

NT!

[mondo joe]

187. "Equal"? Not legally.

:eyes:

[Zhade]

230. We're sure as fuck not TREATED equally under the law.

And per your own words, you're clearly not all that interested in that discrimination ending.

[patrice]

75. Perhaps he's referring to variations in the application of that word.

Any given individual can be anything from 100% homosexual, to 50% homosexual:50% heterosexual, to 1% homosexual:ninety-nine% heterosexual. The term "gay" obviously means different things to different people.

[terrya]

110. He's apparently peddling that "it's a choice" crap.

Apparently, being gay is like changing your socks or something.

[Marie26]

22. What gets me

Is the people starting threads about the issue they think nobody should care about. It's always a warning bell for me when people start showing up on a social issue complaining that everyone should be talking about IRAQ instead. It's basically just telling people to shut up about a cause they care about. You care about Iraq, post about Iraq. Don't dismiss an important civil rights issue.

[Zhade]

237. According to the OP's own words, it's not an important issue.

NT!

[SharonRB]

27. Sexuality has nothing to do with the discussion

It's the civil rights of one group of people, not their sexuality, that people are concerned about. I was really surprised to see your post on DU -- it goes against everything we here stand for. There should be equal rights for everyone, and it's a big issue when one group is discriminated against, for whatever reason. It needs to be discussed.

No one is obsessed with anyone's sex lives.

:eyes:

[AlCzervik]

29. what you said.

:hi: :thumbsup:

[LostinVA]

79. Great post!

[SharonRB]

156. Thanks, LostinVA

I had so hoped we would meet in DC at the march last month. I met Haruka in NY last April and was hoping to meet you as well.

[LostinVA]

158. I know, I really wanted to meet some of you all, too

Unfortunately, Haruka and I currently only get to see each other a few days a month, so we decided to stay at my place that weekend.

[DKRC]

40. Civil rights are important -

even to those of us not being discriminated against. I don't fit in alot of the groups being denied basic rights, but I can stand up as a human being and add my voice when they say "This isn't right!"

BTW If you don't want to read the topic then don't. I skip alot of topics since there are only so many hours in a day.

[redqueen]

48. You remidned me of a Debs quote I love...

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living things, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on the earth. I said then and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

As long as GLBT people do not have their civil rights, neither do I.

[DKRC]

161. Here are 2 quotes I live by

If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately. - Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, December 19, 1776

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

- Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945


Divide & conquer is an old tactic and I refuse to hate or fear in service to anyone's agenda.

[Zhade]

238. Thank you for being a decent human being who cares about all of us.

NT!

[hulklogan]

45. This is just another example of the "Eccentric Uncle" syndrome around here

So many of the supposed "liberals" here on DU have this same attitude -- they only tolerate the gays because we're reliable supporters of the Democratic Party. When we want to discuss (or work for) our human rights, it's always "Can't we talk about more important things?" or "Please can you just keep quiet until after the next election? If we win, then we might think about working on equality."

We are the ones who should be tolerating the anti-equality liberals.

[Bluebear]

52. Because "gay" issues are "civil" rights issues "and" a lot "of" people here "are" gay

And we damn "sight" support everyone "else's" pet causes and wish we "could" expect the same "respect" back.

[Katherine Brengle]

109. Your post makes me wish we had a reputation system here.

:hi:

[blockhead]

242. good article.

http://www.alternet.org/story/13542/

[ninkasi]

55. It's about equal rights

I think that there's another reason, too. Republics have been screeching against the possibility of gay marriage, have tried to ban gays from adopting children, and have been trying to get laws passed that make their prejudices the law. We have to react to these attacks against the civil rights of our GLBT brothers and sisters. It's outrageous that a whole segment of the population should have laws passed against letting them enjoy the same rights as everybody else.

Kentuck, It's not really about the sex lives of anybody, it's about the damage done to individuals when legislation is passed to keep them from being equal citizens under the law. That's part of the damage that Bush and the republics have done to the country.

[kentuck]

69. I think we should seriously discuss the best way to achieve what you want and deserve...

It is not possible to shove anything down the throat of people that are as homophobic and as fearful as probably the majority of Americans. We can wish and we can hope but we have to deal with reality at the same time. I think we are on the right track. Once derailed, it will be for a very long time.

[redqueen]

76. Why not? They did it with civil rights for minorities, didn't they?

Some people you just have to drag kicking and screaming toward progress. IMO you can't let them set the tempo or you'll never get anywhere.

[Spazito]

84. And for women's rights as well!

Any rights that have been gained have been fought for and over not calmly discussed and resolved over a cup of tea and gentle persuasion.

[redqueen]

95. Indeed...

those who would rather others be kept down aren't going to ever be persuaded by calm logic that it's best we stop doing that.

[Spazito]

59. Maybe because it's a rights issue?

Just like voting rights, the right of Congress to stop bush, the right of free speech, etc. Why can't a rights issue be front and center or are some rights issues more important than others?

Why wasn't that question asked whenever voting rights issues were concerned? (Not asking the poster specifically re this rather it is a generic question)

[Kingshakabobo]

62. "No goddam wonder..."

No goddam wonder...What? Why don't you be an adult and finish your thought so we can complete the picture?

Also, it's not about people's "sex lives"..... Except for fuck-head homophobes.


eta: this is also a response to post# 10

[kentuck]

91. No goddamn wonder some people react the way they do...

There's always someone that feels their words are not exactly "right" and are ready to accuse them of homophobia or bigotry at the drop of a pin. No goddamn wonder. Are we persecuted like those Christians on the right? Seems to be about the same tone?

[redqueen]

102. Who has accused you of homophobia or bigotry?

I know for a fact I did not. Yet you directed those inflammatory words at me.

What does your last question ask? Are you wondering if heteros who are so put off by (what in their view is) excessive discussions of issues they deem less of a priority... are they like those oh-so persecuted Christians on the right? Is that what you're asking?

[mondo joe]

195. Dude, you think it's about sex lives!

Sorry - I am among far from the most sensitive gay guy you'll find on DU, but that's just fucking ignorant.

Gay teens are kicked out of their homes because they are gay.

Gay people can be denied access to their spouse on his or her deathbed.

Get a fucking clue please.

[Zhade]

239. You're comparing the whining of wannabe-theocrats to our denied rights?

You're a real piece of work.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. So, hopefully, one day it won't be an "issue".

I'm straight. As far as I know, I was born that way. It's not an "issue" for me. As far as I know, I've never not got a job for being straight. No one tried to stop me from getting married because I'm straight. Though I've had a few jibes poked at me by some of my gay friends for being straight, I've never felt intimidated or threatened by them. When my wife was hospitalized, nobody told me that I couldn't visit her because I wasn't "family". Etc, etc, etc.

Hopefully, the "issue" of homosexuality will, someday, no longer be an "issue" for most people.

And, the same may be said about any number of other "issues". Race, ethnicity, class, etc.

[Strawman]

82. Isn't it all connected?

Isn't it all based on misrecognition and misunderstanding and the fact that the people who voted in George Bush have a problem with difference? Difference is always threatening, it's always wrong to them and those they deem as different are never recognized as equally entitled to human rights or even basic respect.

The war in Iraq and gay rights issues are both, fundamentally, about human rights and recongition of others. If our society learns that lesson somehow, both problems will be solved.

[patrice]

87. Thank you Strawman! You beat me to it.

:applause:

BTW: What you just said is indeed NOT a straw man, so I'm puzzled by your name.

[Strawman]

93. Comes from a Lou Reed song

and it's meant to be ironic. :hi:

[patrice]

115. I'm going to look that one up now . . .

:bounce:

[redqueen]

92. What a great post!

:thumbsup:

[libnnc]

98. It is connected. It's all about being an "other".

You put it very well.

[kentuck]

108. I do agree.

And you can add those the Christian Right and the Israeli supporters into the mix also.

[Strawman]

131. I understand the impetus for your OP

I don't disagree that it is frustrating when you feel something you think is important is not getting enough attention on the public agenda, and DU is our "public." And these resolutions definitely merit attention.

But I see these efforts as synergystic and I think gays, like anyone else, will be more energized and effective politically when politics become personal. And I think the talk and understanding about human rights that emerges from that kind of engagement will naturally enrich the debate on Iraq.

This is, fundamentally, I think, a community of progressive talkers. If we just talk strategy or parrot the Dick Durbin response to the surge speech ("we've done enough for these crazy people, we're outta here") what have we contributed to the cause? How do the Dick Durbin's of the world ever feel that they are on solid political ground in rationalizing policy based on human rights if activist communities don't provide him with the language or the sense that this is a tenable position? The MSM won't manufacture that kind of public opinion. Neither will our party elites. We are the ones that have to bring it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

85. are you going to cry about the lack of attention to straight issues?

oh thats tragic

[Henryman]

94. This is why.....

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963
US black civil rights leader & clergyman (1929 - 1968)

[verse18]

96. Because it should.

We live in a society were hate and bigotry is national policy. No one who supports "gay" issues are obsessed with anyone's sexuality. It's a human rights thing. You wouldn't understand.

[Katherine Brengle]

101. Because it's important.

How about asking why we exploded over ANS? That would be a far better stupid question.

The civil rights of an oppressed minority are an important thing to talk about.

:puke:

[terrya]

106. Because this is the "General Discussion" forum

Instead of the "Iraq Resolution" forum.

And my being gay is more than "sex issues". I have a partner. We love each other very much. But, guess what...we can't get married in this state! And there's a concerted effort to deny me and my partner the same rights you take for granted.

So, gosh, I'm SO sorry my fight for full equality is so irrelevant to you. And when you own and run Democratic Underground, then perhaps you can dictate to us what topics are more important.

[Bluebear]

118. When partner is dying and partner's gay-hating family won't let you see him...

...will people here be telling you to "lighten up" and "get over it"?

It's so sad that we take so much bandwidth on our pesky equality issues.

[redqueen]

122. Y'all are gonna make me cry!

:(

[Bluebear]

127. It's because you have a heart.

And the fight for our rights is not "inconveniencing you".

:hug:

[redqueen]

130. You're right...

it's heart-rending to think of this kind of thing being dismissed as somehow not a "major" issue.

:pals:

[terrya]

124. You're so right.

I am dumbfounded that, on February 16, 2007, the 21st fucking century, I am actually reading something so blatantly stupid like "why should we spend so much attention talking about people's sex lives". It's almost criminally ignorant to display that kind of mentality today.

[redqueen]

132. ...

:pals:

I do not believe it's this bad. I just don't. It can't be. Not here... I'm sure if we did a poll, it'd reflect that that is the case. I hope to God I'm not wrong... but honestly, I'm afraid to find out. :(

[terrya]

134. Thank you.

Thank you for your kind words, redqueen. You're one of the good ones.

:pals:

I'm amazed reading some of the stuff around here. Perhaps after all of this time, I shouldn't be surprised.

[sniffa]

139. but who couLd we get to post such a poLL?

hmmmm.. :think:

[redqueen]

140. ...

:7

:hug:

[Bluebear]

148. ...

Hmm indeed! :spray:

[sniffa]

186. aha! i've got it..

[ronnykmarshall]

150. Well no godamn wonder ........

just needed to throw that new catch phrase in.

[terrya]

155. I guess we should compile a compendium of these "pearls of wisdom"

"well, no goddamn wonder" "geez, lighten up, willya", etc.

[TwilightZone]

112. Maybe...

Because there are a lot of gay people on DU, and that they believe that their issues are important and deserve attention?

[LeftishBrit]

119. Umm, maybe because the right-wingers are obsessed with people's sexuality and have a hate-campaign

against gays?

I would say that this is an important issue. (And I am not gay; and I live in a country where homophobia is certainly a problem but is not currently one of the main themes being actively promoted by the government). Surely, just because not 'everyone' belongs to a group that is being discriminated against, this does not make the discrimination unimportant. Would you ask whether 'it helps or hurts' African Americans to discuss civil rights issues, or women to discuss reproductive choice and sex discrimination issues, or religious minorities to discuss religious bigotry?

I think that the topic of bigotry is an important one for EVERYONE, because sooner or later most of us will find ourselves in some group that is discriminated against - for gender; race; ethnic group; religion; sexual orientation; age; etc. And even for those who are lucky enough not to - it makes the world a more cruel and unjust place ,and surely that diminishes us all. Not to mention dividing people, and making it easier for oppressive leaders to 'divide and rule'.

[mmonk]

121. Maybe it has to do with their rights being denied

and currently, fervently under attack. Is there an issue with that?

[Zhade]

240. Per the OP's own words, maybe a "minor" issue.

Fucking unbelievable, isn't it?

[Debi]

123. Imagine if Tim Hardaway had said "I hate white people" or "I hate women"

It would get the same reaction.

Bush and the illegal war are serious, global warming is serious, low wages and no health care are serious and so is discrimination.

There is the opportunity to discuss it all here at DU. I don't beleive this is a monolithic subject site.

[ronnykmarshall]

152. Well no godamn wonder ...

if he said that about women too and the gays ..... he'd be shit out of luck when it came to getting a date!

:silly:

[Debi]

166. I hope you're not picking on me

:cry:

"gays" thinkin they can be "majors" don't they know the rules???

[ronnykmarshall]

171. Never!

I'm spoofing the orginal posters use of that phrase!

:loveya:

[redqueen]

169. Maybe he prefers to date outside his species?

:shrug:

[Katherine Brengle]

176. I'm not sure as many people would care if he said "I hate women" --

some would, but most people would ignore a comment like that.

[Debi]

178. well no goddamn wonder

the world is upside down :eyes:

[Katherine Brengle]

203. It is indeed...

[oasis]

129. I remember a DU poster asking a similar question a few years back.

:think:

[Az]

133. Your right, oppressed minorities should just wait in the back of the bus till you are ready to deal

with their issues.

Look everyone has their issues. Some resonate more than others. And some groups are better positioned due to social advances than others. Their issues seem relevant to even those who are not directly affected by them.

[zonkers]

135. It's about tolerance. Period. It's about respecting others rights to be. When we protect our gay

brothers and sisters, we protect our ethnic and religous minorities, we protect our handicapped and our elderly and our children. It's about an equal playing field for EVERYBODY.

[Bluebear]

137. THAT'S what I'm talking about!!!

THAT is why I am a liberal. :hug:

[zonkers]

149. Still Bluebear, that said, I think Hardaway has the right to express his homophobic views as

reprehensible as they may be. And in expressing his views, he really tossed the ball back to the NBA/Commissioner Stern -- who did the right thing and immediately eliminated him from all NBA all star events. Apology or not, Hardaway's remarks cost him dearly -- not just in regard to his basketball legacy but also it probably cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars(endorsement, commentating, etc.)

If he was willing to pay this heavy price to express his homophobic feelings, that's his business. I am shocked he ever went there -- we are not talking about a kid -- you'd think a grown man, seasoned by money, worldly experience and diversity would be a bit more broad minded.

[Bluebear]

153. Hardaway is a chump extraordinaire.

He will be looking in the mirror for the rest of his life saying "Stupid! Stupid, stupid, stupid!"

Good enough for him. :evilgrin:

[redqueen]

168. I agree!

Please, bigots everywhere, out yourselves loudly and proudly... and as often as possible... so that we can use your ignorance as an example, and shame you, and the inexperienced can learn from your stupidity. Heck, maybe they might end up learning something, as well.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

146. A) It's not about sex. B) It's about civil rights.

Caring for humanity is not a zero-sum game.

[LostinVA]

174. You know what, SA?

If I could, I'd get you a date with Rachael Ray -- BECAUSE I LOVE YOU!!!

[Starbucks Anarchist]

175. LOL, thanks!

:hug:

[fishwax]

180. probably because there is so much complaining about posters bringing up gay issues

I can't count the number of threads--let alone the number of individual posts--in the weeks since the super bowl that have complained about civil rights issues "distracting" us from "real" (or "major") issues.

Civil and human rights are important to me. There is a well-oiled propaganda machine constantly working against the basic rights of a large segment of the population. That's worth responding to, in my book.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

181. Oh snap!

[Bluebear]

183. Dude!

Thank you.

[Left Is Write]

190. It's shocking to me how many DUers are contributing to the anti-gay propaganda.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

192. Hell, there was a DUer posting in another thread...

that she won't allow gays near her children and that it's a choice.

Amazingly, she's not TS'd.

[Left Is Write]

194. I'm trying to come up with a response and I just can't...

That is just beyond sad.

[gollygee]

204. What???

Here at DU???

I've had a lesbian couple babysit my daughter and I'd be perfectly happy to have a gay man babysit a son (if I had a son). That's ridiculous. I'm astounded that someone at a progressive site would think that, let alone put it in a post here.

:(

[TahitiNut]

208. Where? This, I have to see. "she"??

I take my 87-year-old mother to the local VFW fish fry most Friday nights, including last night. Two of the folks who work the fish fry have a grandson (Blake) whose parents have brought him in a few times in the last several weeks. Blake's one year old - and a real red-headed charmer; healthy, curious, irascible, and "all boy." My mother enjoys him a great deal. My mother has not yet noticed, nor have I pointed out, that Blake has two Mommies. (I just don't need the aggravation.) Contrary to stereotype, all the VFW denizens couldn't care less. Great 'kids' (I'm their parents' age) and obviously caring and attentive parents.

[k_jerome]

182. are you a "white" dude? nt.

[mondo joe]

189. Why talk more about civil rights than a non binding resolution?

I dunno - maybe because some people care about equality.

[Horse with no Name]

191. Because when the rights of one group are infringed upon

It endangers the rest of us. Human rights are every bit as important as any others.
Of all places...DU shouldn't be a place where our GLBT brothers and sisters have to defend themselves against bigotry and innuendo, but it is becoming increasingly a problem.

[WindRavenX]

196. so sad, isn't it

And it's why homophobia in America is so deep in the culture :(

[Horse with no Name]

198. I attribute it to other things here

I think we have some very stealth posters here that seek to divide us on (what should be) our core issues.
You always see the usual suspects show up in the threads on GLBT rights, Women's rights, etc.
I don't think it is by accident.

[Bunny]

213. Yes! Only I don't think they're as stealth as they think they are.

Most are pretty obvious, and you are right: they are sure to show up on any thread related to gays, minorities, women, etc. They're always sure to tell us that we're not "logical", etc.

[nam78_two]

200. ....

I have not actually counted, but in my unscientific estimation at least,
for every thread by a gay rights activist defending their cause - a basic human rights issue, there are 10 content-free ones asking "why the issue gets so much attention".

The snickers stuff started when one or two people posted about the ad and why
they thought it was homophobic and offensive (and I agreed with them) and then some other posters started about 10 threads a piece about why the ad wasn't offensive, the Sopranos,Norbit, blah blah blah....

To me defending a cause you support , which affects every day of your life, even if it involves posting in a stupid flame-bait thread (started in all probability by a troll) is understandable and laudable. But, starting many many flame-bait posts over the right to be offensive or whatever it is that the point of the other lot is, smacks of trolling...:shrug:....
I am not saying all such posts are done with the intention of trolling etc. btw, just that quite a few have to be (especially the ones started by posters who never do anything but stir up shit).

I think most of them are conservative trolls and I think there MO is to start 15 flame-bait threads on a topic that affects some given sub-group at a particular time, which obviously gets a response from the affected community, and then keep using that as an excuse to say "Oh look-this topic gets too much attention". Nice little feed-back loop type thing they generated there. Btw none of that is directed at you specifically. I generally try to avoid posting in threads by the people I think are con trolls, even when they post something that angers me.

Ok I don't think this post makes too much sense but I am sleepy...

[Bluebear]

201. kick

[sniffa]

202. weLL, i think the gay issues have died down now

circuLar firing squad and aLL.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

206. I call for a ban on assault weapons.

No, not really.

[donco6]

231. I was reading along and came to this one . . .

:rofl: :spray:

[TahitiNut]

207. Well, we have to shoot at the targets we have, not the targets we want.

:evilgrin:

[k_jerome]

205. because its more important. nt.

[Karenina]

209. Those gays, those blacks...

You're really on a roll lately.

[uppityperson]

210. It is not about "sex lives" but civil rights. eom

[applegrove]

211. You can't be series...gay issues are not hugh on the DU. They are a tiny

bit of the posts. If you add them all up. LOL!

[Dastard Stepchild]

212. Because life is incredibly complex...

and this is but one of hundreds of pertinent issues facing the people that participate on this board. Even if you were to attempt to place all the issues on a hierarchical scale of relevance... well, I don't know that you could. Our scales would all be so different. So everything gets thrown out for consumption and debate, which creates, I would argue, a rich dialog pot.

Plus, conversations tend to come in waves on DU. Something will spark a discussion string, and that topic remains the center of focus for awhile. Actually, that is not only a DU phenomenon - happens on a lot of internet message boards.

There are so many threads on this board that it is impossible to not find something you wish to talk about. I find that the search function can be helpful if I am itching to speak about something specific. Otherwise, I just go with the flow, like any other group conversation.

[philosophie_en_rose]

214. Love me. Love me. Love me. I'm a "liberal."

...

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
As long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crane?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

...

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

[yurbud]

215. because we are capable of multi-tasking?

[Solly Mack]

216. Human rights aren't a major concern for everyone?

Or - human rights aren't a major concern to those who aren't denied their rights?

Human rights are a major issue are they not? Does not this "everyone" you speak of concern themselves with human rights?

What are "gay issues"?

Reducing human rights to a matter of "sex lives" and "sexuality" is beyond insulting.

[Zhade]

217. Why do you wrongly assume being gay is strictly about sex lives?

Should we shut up because we're distracting you with our clamoring for our due equal rights?

Well, tough.

[election_2004]

227. Because the quality of life for LGBT people is severely impaired

Particularly in the states where they've passed constitutional amendments to, not only ban same-sex marriage, but ALSO prohibit the recognition of any domestic union between people of the same sex.

[k_jerome]

232. perhaps most DU'ers are gay....nt.

[donco6]

233. Well, here's the Front Page:

Let's look at this scientifically. I went in search of all these "gay posts".

Why Clinton's Not Sorry: Maintaining (Imperialistic?) Power for Executive Branch
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 01:22 AM by DrFunkenstein
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.


Hillary Clinton urges troop withdrawal to begin in 90 days
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 01:22 AM by Herman Munster
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Trial Lawyers and the Democratic Party
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 01:21 AM by BayCityProgressive
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

XM 167 - Air America Radio.....
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 01:17 AM by Postman
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Who Will Protect and Defend Our Military From the Bush Administration?
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 01:14 AM by babylonsister
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Hospital Addresses Soldiers' Complaints
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 01:13 AM by cal04
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

PELOSI ROCKS
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 01:09 AM by omega minimo
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Anti-war, pro-peace and the Law of Attraction
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 01:08 AM by dist22dem
Editorials & Other Articles

Hmm, no gay sex there. Well not EXCLUSIVELY anyway . . .

An Inconvenient Responsibility: Doing All You Can To End The War
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 01:08 AM by babylonsister
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there. And WAR!

"At the morgue" -- from the McClatchy Baghdad Bureau "Inside Iraq" blog
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 01:03 AM by scarletwoman
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Want to hear a crazy person speak? Listen to this "debate" with Frank Gaffney
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:58 AM by Postman
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Regarding my Valentine's heart
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:55 AM by PSPS
Latest Breaking News

LOVE, but not sex. At least, not yet.

Giuliani praises conservative judges (esp. Alito & Scalia)
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:55 AM by villager
General Discussion: Politics

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Found: Clinton's deadline
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:53 AM by ProSense
Media

Hmm, no gay sex there.

ABC's Disgraceful Evening News: Ho'ing for * Again
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:52 AM by NJCher
General Discussion: Politics

Hmm, no gay sex there. Well, not unless it's a male reporter, I guess. But it's too awful to contemplate.

Clinton urges start of Iraq pullout in 90 days (Reuters)
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:45 AM by Eugene
Veterans

Hmm, no gay sex there. Unless that's a really bad pun.

Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:42 AM by Dover
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Connecticut Registered Voters - RECALL LIEberman
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:41 AM by understandinglife
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

The troops morale IS being affected by Congressional Resolutions
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:38 AM by Vinnie From Indy
General Discussion: Politics

Hmm, no gay sex there.

NADER to the rescue! of Republicans
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:38 AM by billybob537
Media

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Any other fans of "The Pouges" here? The Pogues are asking for rare recording for a new "Box Set"...
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:34 AM by Up2Late
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Go ahead , this made my day !
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:32 AM by tocqueville
General Discussion: Politics

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Has John Edwards ever worked a pro bono case?
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:31 AM by Ninja Jordan
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

WaPo: Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:31 AM by babylonsister
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Obama admired in Europe, Asia and Africa
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:27 AM by jg82567
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Let's Flex Our Non-Consumer Muscles
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:27 AM by petgoat
General Discussion: Politics

Hmm, no gay sex there.

To all Political Advisers here at DU....
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:23 AM by Flabbergasted
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Mountains of homes still listed for sale
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:22 AM by Herman Munster
Latest Breaking News

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Whale meat cargo must come to NZ (by law; meat would be confiscated)
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:15 AM by Barrett808
Editorials & Other Articles

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Military Justice Goes AWOL
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:11 AM by Doondoo
Latest Breaking News

Hmm, no gay sex there.

House Dems back fed. shield law; Would protect reporters from revealing sources to govt prosecutors
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:09 AM by Doondoo
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Senator Byrd Is In Line For Presidency After Pelosi
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:07 AM by orleans
General Discussion: Politics

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Rosen claimed he "stumbled" in calling Obama "Osama" three times during broadcast
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:06 AM by Flabbergasted
Latest Breaking News

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Calif. awards $45M in stem cell grants
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:04 AM by deadparrot
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

And the father of Anna Nicole's baby is...Stephen Colbert
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:03 AM by Mabus
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there. Just some really scary images . . .

CNN Headline News is positively dreadful.
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:01 AM by babylonsister
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there. But I was gonna post that, too.

Chicago Tribune sues Fox News over 'Red Eye'
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:01 AM by Kadie
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Food Politics and Safety Issues . . . interesting website . . .
Discussion started Sun Feb-18-07 12:00 AM by OneBlueSky
Editorials & Other Articles

Hmm, no gay sex there.

NY Post front page says TREASON
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:59 PM by Meeker Morgan
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

How do the Iraqi people refer to this "war"?
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:58 PM by JAYJDF
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Sunday Talk Shows
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:57 PM by cal04
General Discussion: Politics

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Clinton urges start of Iraq pullout in 90 days
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:54 PM by CatWoman
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there. But a nice Dupe.

How About My New Congressman's Speech!!
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:52 PM by Dinger
Editorials & Other Articles

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility (Walter Reed)
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:51 PM by karlrschneider
General Discussion: Politics

Another dupe.

Iraq will remain unstable unless something very different is tried
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:48 PM by left of center
General Discussion: Politics

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Challenge GOP "surge" obstructionism on pure merit
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:43 PM by Parisle
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

The right wing fundies sure love to hate Hillary...
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:43 PM by liberal N proud
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Washington’s Farewell Address Translated into Everyday Speech
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:41 PM by LynzM
General Discussion: Politics

Hmm, no gay sex there.

CNN - Lou Dobbs RE: Border Agents that are in prison...
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:40 PM by oldtimecanuk
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Unbelieveable!
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:39 PM by jmauller
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Colbert Blasts Steve Doocy for Trying to Steal Helen Thomas’ Seat
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:39 PM by CatWoman
General Discussion: Politics

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Photos of Dennis Kucinich today in Westport CT
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:39 PM by sellitman
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

CNN is postively ORGASMIC
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:32 PM by CatWoman
Latest Breaking News

EWWWW!

Tens of thousands protest plan to expand US air base in Italy
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:31 PM by deadparrot
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Jonesing for progressive radio? I present George Galloway
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:30 PM by never cry wolf
Latest Breaking News

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Death penalty supporters, opponents write Ohio governor's office
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:29 PM by Algorem
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Anna Nicole Bush
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:29 PM by salinen
General Discussion

Okay, now let's not speak ill of the dead here . . .

Has anyone gotten used to the flying graphics on tv ?
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:28 PM by blues90
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

Calling Steve Jobs: Help us defuse Planegate!
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:27 PM by jmowreader
General Discussion

Hmm, no gay sex there.

If the Republicans are so proud of Bush's Iraq policy...
Discussion started Sat Feb-17-07 11:27 PM by journalist3072

Hmm, no gay sex there.

[JerseygirlCT]

236. Because "gay" issues are civil rights issues, and there is quite

simply nothing more bedrock important than civil rights. All else flows from that.

[salin]

241. a couple of comments

1) in the last couple of weeks there have beens some very high profile examples of social and institutional homophobia that exemplify the attitudes and hatred that some Duers face on a daily basis (I use the word exemplify because for those of us who do not live the experience, we don't fully 'get' the covert and overt daily hostitility and serious life-obstacle - so these examples and discussions serve to make us more aware - even if we were already supportive - it isn't our reality)

2) during some of these heated threads there have been some great discussions, there have been some rather shocking comments from a few posters that further "exemplify" (in quotes as i am using the term in the way I describe in the first point) how insidious and pervasive the hostile attitudes towards the GLBT community are - and while the offending comments are not widespread - they are recurrent.

3) among the posters asking questions like yours (ala why are there so many threads on the topic) - there are also threads started that are outright dismissive - as if the GLBT community should just go silent. Because the theme has become so overtly obvious those of us who missed the subtle 'sit down and be quiet' message are now hit between the eyes with it - and there is some good to that - as those of us who don't live it - don't always see it. The last couple of weeks have educated a whole lot of folks, and I have to believe there is some good to come from that.

4) as a response to the points 1-3 some posters emotions (understandably) are so high (as anyone would be if another person had whacked a hornets nest next to you and you - to no fault of your own - are left trying to fend of wild stinging hornets) - that some of the responses to other DUers saying things out of ignorance - a state that i am in per being GLBT (as in it isn't my reality so I might say something really stupid or obvious) almost get a 'swarm' response; that is so many folks GLBT duers and supporters are on high alert - so somethings that are borderline are read as hostile and responded to as if hostile - leading to a counter reaction. This point I think is very situational due to points 1-3 and is common not just to this moment and this community but has also arisen on other issues when a series of current events and brutal responses happen in quick succession and those with great passions to that issue respond and get a dismissive audience from which further discussions with increasingly heightened emotions are borne. It has happened since I came to DU in Jan 2002 - but back then the forum was so small that the discussion didn't during the height of the moment seem to 'crowd out' other discussions, in terms of the number of threads started in a short period of time.

I have viewed myself as supportive of the GLBT community prior to these past several weeks. At the same time I have always recognized my limitattions per getting the reality given those are not my shoes. Many of the discussions have been very interesting - and have opened my eyes further. I have found folks 'accepting' of my ignorance and attempts to better understand.

Kentuck, you know that I am a policy person - and a news/analyzer. Have been since I got here. I also have been irked by the phenomenon of 'rabbit threads' - threads that spawn 3 response threads which spawn 8 response threads which spawn 12 more response threads, etc. Of recent times I think of the Edwards "House" issue. And while in the first days per the Snickers ad - on the surface this seemed like another one of those phenomenon. But reading those threads (I wasn't one when the ads aired and the discussion threads began) - I understood that this was *very* different than the 'rabbit thread' topics (my term for the phenom previously described). And some of the side debates and discussions were fruitful and others were ghastly - per some sentiments stated by Duers - not only were the sentiments gross (per blatant and very hostile homophobic) - they were shocking in the sense that in the context of this community and these discussions that those posters felt justified and supportive in going off in a way-over the top way. A post about wanting to DIE before having gay sex (and rape was implied) - and the comment was completely out of context with the thread - almost read like a poster with tourettes - (not to excuse the post- as I use it here as an example of the hostility posted; but because not only was the post upsetting - it was completely out of the blue - a complete nonsequitor.) These are very important discussions. Hopefully, as a result, we as a community at DU will grow. And as we grow, perhaps we help the greater progressive movement to grow as well.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

243. Thank you for this awesome post.

It really does mean a lot.

:thumbsup:

[salin]

246. I have learned a lot in recent days.

including having some blinder that I didn't know existed (I mean I KNOW I have them - but we are just unaware of how many we have) pulled off. I have been on and off intermittently (and the midwestern snow storm gave me a little more on-time that I usually get) - and have been pretty shocked by some of what I have read. And when I gasp, I have to remind myselves - that ya'll get some of this crazy sh*t on a daily basis.

Call me an appoligist of a sort - I appologize for straight women (I won't claim the men - they are on their own) who act like *ss*s - and cause damage along their path. Seriously, for our history (and for many current) reality of subjegation - we should really know better. And you deserve MUCH BETTER.

btw, thanks for reading through/past the typos in that post. I just reread it and cringed - but am too tired this evening to go back and edit it.

[BlooInBloo]

244. Wow. Are you serious? How crappy.

EDIT: Gay issues are EVERYONE's issues. Anyone who says different is a fucking idiot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...