Here's the plan. First, I'll get an ex-gay black gospel singer to "perform" (i.e. give a speech)

[farmboy]

at one of my events in S.C. You know the one, Donnie McClurkin, who vows "to battle the curse of homosexuality"? Who said "I'm not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children." That's the guy.

I'll tell everyone that he is there to just sing, but I'll make sure he has a chance to preach, I mean speak, to the audience and have him tell those attending my gospel event things like "God DELIVERED me from homosexuality. Don’t call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have SUFFERED the same feelings." Ok, now I know some people will be upset, so I'll just say beforehand that I don't really agree with his views on this, but I will not, under any pressure, remove him from the event. I need the votes of those folks in S.C. that agree with him about the whole curse and sin thing, you know?

Then, later, if it comes up in other states, say New Hampshire, I'll find some of my gay and gay-friendly friends who I can convince that this was all just a misunderstanding, to come speak out on my behalf. There. That should work. Makes me look like I can support both sides of the gay thing. I want to bring people together, you know? If a few people get shit on to make that happen, at least its the group that is most likely not to turn Republican in the election. They'll have to come around, right?

What? This is the kind of talk that helps make gay and lesbian young people have the highest rates of suicide in the entire population? Well, that's not my fault, right? I don't really agree with him, remember? Come on now, lets talk about hope and faith and of our future together, with me as Mr. President, of course.

[guruant]

1. Alright

sounds good :toast:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. President Obama sounds good to me too!

:hi:

[guruant]

16. I know!!!

Just look at how homophobic he is!!! He's the freakin reincarnation of Dubya, I tell ya!! :patriot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG5u04Gbg0A

[mrreowwr_kittty]

20. One yoyo on another thread told me that Obama wants to send gays to camps to be fixed

And that made him JUST like Huckabee, who thinks AIDS patients should be quarantined.

I looked on Obama's website and tried to find the plan to send gays to reeducation Bible camps but I didn't see it. :shrug:

[Maven]

28. How does that video help him?

He spends the whole time saying marriage is between a man and a woman, marriage is not a civil right (the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia disagreed)...he wouldn't even say unequivocally that homosexuality is not a choice (!), just that it's part of someone's identity. The whole time, bobbing, weaving and triangulating.

Because he's better on the issue than Alan Keyes, that makes him pro-equal rights?

[FreeState]

36. You know

its fine if you dont agree with some of us gay folks about what happened - however your post just ridicules the very real pain many of us have - its quiet insulting.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

47. And you know what

It's fine if you don't want to vote for Obama because of it. But if you're going to accuse Obama of being a homophobe (he's not) and me of being one if I don't jump to obey your command to stop supporting him, then I'm not going to respect you. Not saying you've done that, but that's exactly the behavior exhibited by many of the Obama bashers. Furthermore, people have every right to be upset about McClurkin, but there's no justification for the lies and insinuations of this OP.

[FreeState]

69. What kind of reply is that?

I mean seriously - why not comment on my post instead of making up side topics. It is not appropriate to demean peoples real life feeling - no matter who is doing it.

Im assuming your gay by your icon - of all people you should know how painful this is for any GLBT person that grew up in a conservative religious household - the problem is not that he was there, the problem is the anti-gay rhetoric, the thing that has kept GLBT persons enslaved for 100's of years. Obama never apologized for letting that be spoken at his event - real change does not come until someone stands up and says enough is enough and never again. I dont care how pro-gay Obama's record is - if he allows hateful rhetoric at his events he is contributing to problem, not salving it.

[monktonman]

3. a-duh?

[Occam Bandage]

4. All right, here's the plan.

Occasional paragraph breaks. They turn the above unreadable screed into something more pleasant to the eye. Lemme tell ya, you're makin' my queer eye bleed trying to read that.

--------

at one of my events in S.C. You know the one, Donnie McClurkin, who vows "to battle the curse of homosexuality"? Who said "I'm not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children." That's the guy.

I'll tell everyone that he is there to just sing, but I'll make sure he has a chance to preach, I mean speak, to the audience and have him tell those attending my gospel event things like "God DELIVERED me from homosexuality. Don’t call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have SUFFERED the same feelings." Ok, now I know some people will be upset, so I'll just say beforehand that I don't really agree with his views on this, but I will not, under any pressure, remove him from the event. I need the votes of those folks in S.C. that agree with him about the whole curse and sin thing, you know?

Then, later, if it comes up in other states, say New Hampshire, I'll find some of my gay and gay-friendly friends who I can convince that this was all just a misunderstanding, to come speak out on my behalf. There. That should work. Makes me look like I can support both sides of the gay thing. I want to bring people together, you know? If a few people get shit on to make that happen, at least its the group that is most likely not to turn Republican in the election. They'll have to come around, right?

What? This is the kind of talk that helps make gay and lesbian young people have the highest rates of suicide in the entire population? Well, that's not my fault, right? I don't really agree with him, remember? Come on now, lets talk about hope and faith and of our future together, with me as Mr. President, of course.

--------

There. Now that's the kind of primary-season bashing we can all get behind.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. Thanks for that, I mean this is HUGH11 I'm series

[monktonman]

6. and its still dumb. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

8. Yeah, it is. But without proper formatting, it's difficult to tell just *how* dumb.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

17. Wow, he took your advice! Yeah, you can really tell how dumb it is now. nt

[farmboy]

7. Thanks.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Bluebear]

14. "The McClurkin thing" never officially interested you, though, did it?

[Occam Bandage]

18. It did interest me, at one point.

Obama dropped to #5 on my list during the McClurkin affair, and it's still on my list of problems with Obama. However, I (and this is just my opinion) find it a relatively minor issue. I believe that most mentions of McClurkin are politically driven, and a good portion beyond that are merely canned internet outrage. This does not mean that I believe all offense expressed is non-genuine; I simply think that more has been expressed than exists.

[Bluebear]

22. I see by your avatar that you're over it, good for you.

Meanwhile, I'll go on with my canned internet outrage.

[ruggerson]

27. Yeah

it's such a bummer that some of don't want to live four more years under a President who is hostile to our families. That makes me insincere and partisan, right? Because I don't want the potential leader of my country to exploit hatred against my family to garner votes?

[Occam Bandage]

29. Yep. Obama is "hostile" to homosexual families.

You realize that in order for your claims to have any potency, they have to be at a minimum believable to your audience. Well, maybe you don't. Many activist groups self-marginalize by failing to understand that exaggeration is counterproductive.

Obama, who is generally a strong advocate of gay rights, once invited a regionally-popular gospel singer to perform at a gospel show sponsored by his campaign. The singer said some nastily misleading things about homosexuals (as was expected), and Obama's defenses of the invitation were mealy-mouthed. This demonstrates a tendency to retreat from unpopular fights, and that would be a valid attack. It demonstrates a degree of insensitivity to homosexuals. Both of those could be reasonable attacks. "Obama is hostile to gay people?" Not so much.

[ruggerson]

31. I presume you've read about the ex-gay movement

you know that they are not only hostile to us, they don't even want us to exist. And they psychologically torture gay youth.

Obama gave this joker (and the three other homophobic acts) a platform to spew his vile bigotry.

My own personal view on this is that Obama most likely does not share McClurkin's views at all, but he GAVE HIM A STAGE, in other words, he exploited hatred of gays to garner votes.

Okay, so a cynical political move. We can all get over it, because Obama says he supports the right things and his legislative record in the Illinois Senate was fairly progressive and good on equality issues.

But, in order for us to move past it and support the guy, I think he needs to recommit to our cause and give a definitive statement that he understands how damaging the "ex-gay" movement is. That's all. Is that asking too much for a progressive Democratic candidate for a constituency that may make up almost 8 or 9% of his vote, should he be in the general? It would take the man an hour to make all of this right. Why the hostility towards us asking that we be included in his vision?

[Occam Bandage]

35. I think that you absolutely

should be included in Obama's vision, and I agree that Obama still ought repudiate McClurkin and the sick ex-gay movement. He won't, of course; there's not enough pressure for him to bring up old scandals of his own accord. And I agree that his providing McClurkin with a stage was indefensible. (Personally, I don't believe Obama was capitalizing on homophobia; I think he was turning a blind eye to homophobia to capitalize on a singer's popularity. It doesn't excuse him by any means, but there is a subtle difference.)

My problem is when this becomes "Obama is hostile to gays." He simply isn't, and making that argument (in addition to being unfair to Obama) trivializes actual homophobia. When people apply labels to entities that do not deserve them, two things occur:

1. The label does not stick to the entity, weakening the affixer's credibility.
2. The label is weakened through overuse.

Is my stance here influenced by my support for Obama? Maybe. I can't know for certain. But I try to be fair, even if I might not always live up to that goal.

[farmboy]

37. But the hostility comes in the form of the support of someone like McClurkin.

You may be able to differentiate between what you think Obama's real view and intentions are vs. those of his invited representative, McClurkin, at this event, but others will do the exact opposite. They will link the two and use this connection to justify and approve of McClurkins' dangerous beliefs.

For instance, if Obama, in his bid to lead this country, can choose McClurkin to speak on his behalf, then McClurkin is obviously an ok, mainstream kind of guy. His views certainly must be acceptable or else Obama would have nothing to do with him.

I definitely see this has hostility, and I know the damaging effects it has on innocent people. You may think some of us overuse this label or this topic, but I promise that you will continue to see it as long as Obama doesn't address what happened in a much more acceptable manner than he has thus far.

[ruggerson]

43. Well then we are in agreement

He needs to make it right. Won't take more than an hour or two of his time. He needs to make it right both for political reasons and because it's simply the right thing to do.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. A singer, you call him

And yes he is. But he also is a preacher, with his very own chruch, and calls himself Reverend McClurkin. Obama calls him that, too. So the proper term would not be 'singer' but 'Singing Minister'. A subtle difference, but a vital one.
Is there a difference between McClurkin and Robertson? Yes, Robertson does not sing. Again a subtle difference indeed.
And of course, when the GOP uses Dobson, who does not appear at official events you know, we Democrats always parse the subtle difference between capitilizing on religionism and turning a blind eye toward it. We have, as a Party, been welcoming of Republican use of Evangelists to spread their message, so we should of course be welcoming of Obama bringing that tactic to our Party. Because their is no difference betweeen what they do and what Obama has done. Subtle or otherwise.

[ruggerson]

34. And btw

I said we don't want to live four more years under a President hostile to our families. I did not say Obama was. I want to ensure that he *isn't.* (And I tend to believe he isn't, but the exploitation thing casts a bit of a shadow)

So, the only exaggeration was what you read into it.

[PurityOfEssence]

38. So, if excessive outrage is encountered, the offense is no longer offensive?

Presuming you're correct and many are just seizing on a convenient issue to slag him, does that make the offense any less disgusting? It would seem so from your post. Perhaps the din of presumed disingenuous partisans can nullify the ugliness of the act. That would fit with an innate human ability to get accustomed to things, but it doesn't lessen the guilt of the act.

At its heart, this was a calculated use of racial division and religious solidarity to cleave off a big bloc of voters; unfortunately, there was an unintended bit of bigotry that was a private agendum of one of the players, and since it plucked the string of so many of the flock, it was left to vibrate as it pleased.

Bad. Really bad. Cheap. Opportunistic. Insincere. Anti-pluralist.

Just because disagreeable people take issue with this and do so for interested motives doesn't mean that the act isn't an affront to progressivism; it is.

The very fact that Obama is such a hope-invoking, cheery guy underscores the calculated coldness of the act. Never could such a nasty bit of marginalization have been justified or even called-for if it hadn't been for the aggressive oppression of sweet, religion. Get out of the way folks, the ends justify all sorts of meanness.

[Occam Bandage]

59. Insincere outrage does indeed cheapen the actual outrage.

I'm not claiming that the insincere people render the offense acceptable in any way, because they don't. McClurkin is a disgusting person and Obama displayed nothing short of political cowardice in giving him a platform.

However, I am claiming that false outrage does, as you say, move towards nullifying the perceived ugliness of the act; the obvious partisans cast suspicion over the honest. I am also claiming that exaggerated claims made from true outrage (generally given in the clichéd terms of Standard Liberal Internet Outrage, hence my "canned outrage" label) are unhelpful as well:

When someone claims a politician is "hostile" towards minority X, or is "fascist," or is "a sellout," or is "corporate," or is "neocon," or has absolutely anything to do with "the MSM," they're likely to gain the approval of their comrades, who think as they do, and who recognize the words as little more than terms of abuse applied to unsavory characteristics. However, the situation is different from the perspective of an outsider to that community. Unless the charge can be absolutely proven (and actually proven, not "OMG THIS VAGUE OUT-OF-CONTEXT QUOTE PROVES IT" proven) it immediately turns the listener off to your message. What appears to you to be a well-reasoned statement of disgust with malfeasance appears to that observer to be childish and hyperbolic.

Declaring a candidate "hostile to gays"--unless he actually is--has the same impact as James Dobson calling a candidate "hostile to Christians." It appeals to those who already strongly dislike the candidate, and it appeals to those who already find the candidate's actions regarding gays/Christians unacceptable. Everyone else rolls their eyes.

[ruggerson]

70. I agree with you

but I think it's a bit of a red herring that you yourself put up and then shot down. I haven't seen anyone calling Obama "hostile" to gay people. I've seen people calling his campaign exploitative of bigotry and people calling for him to make it clear that he understands how dangerous the anti-gay rightwing evangelical movement is and that he rejects it.

I think you and I are on the same page, other than you find you can support Obama despite your reservations about what occurred, and I am waiting for an acknowledgement that what occurred was unacceptable.

[Occam Bandage]

71. Did I misread the phrase,

"it's such a bummer that some of don't want to live four more years under a President who is hostile to our families?"

[ruggerson]

73. Yep, you sure did.

A President, as in any President. I don't want a President who is hostile to my family. I did not say Obama would be, I'm saying I want to MAKE SURE he understands that the rightwing evangelical ex-gay movement is dangerous and wrong.

I actually have had numerous discussions where I very deliberately refrained from calling Obama a homophobe, because I have no reason to believe he is. One can do something homophobic or have one's campaign do something homophobic without being a homophobe or a bigot personally. It's called making a cynical political calculation.

[farmboy]

24. Now matter how much vile you use to insult me, it doen't even begin to match the insults Obama

directed at gays and lesbians with his decision regarding McClurkin. I am no troll, however. I have read DU daily for several years now as one of my main sources of political news. I rely on it like I never would have believed. But I choose not to post often and only signed up recently because I want to have my say when things that strongly affect me come to pass. I have known I was gay since I was a little boy. I have lived openly for a couple of decades and have been with my partner for over 12 years. I have volunteered as an adult mediator for a local gay and lesbian youth organization and I have seen what the effects of McClurkins' views and language do to young people and those not so young. I have lived through the suicide of three friends all due to ramifications of how society can treat homosexuals. So make jokes, call me names, be rude, but don't think it hurts me. Obama made a major, gigantic mistake and doesn't seem to see it as such or to think anyone is due an explanation or apology. Many of us will not let this go away.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

30. You've read DU daily for years and yet you just now decided to post about this?

You have less than 40 posts, though you've been a member since last Feb. Just curious, where were you back in October, when it was happening? Odd how you pop up to post about this now that he's ahead.

It is your prerogative to support or reject a candidate for whatever reason you choose. If you don't like Obama, fine, then don't vote for him. If you honestly believe all those things you allege about Obama in your post, then you are a moron.

[farmboy]

33. Seems I've ruffled some feathers that are falling down from your lofty, oh so better than thou perch

The number of posts I have during whatever length of time I have officially been a member have absolutely nothing to do with Obama's decision to use McClurkin for his purposes the way that he did. For a long while I was in shock and disbelief and didn't know how to react. Obama was my clear #2 choice at the time. A number of the posts that I have made have had to do diretly with this issue, and I'm sure that any others since this came to light have been heavily influenced by it. I'll leave it to you and others of your great intellect to decide how much of what I type is believable or not. Actions speak loudly. Obama made decisions, and my interpretation is just as valid as yours. I doubt either of us had a one-on-one conversation with him recently. But I do know that he is very smart. He tells us that he is his own man, makes his own decisions, and stand by those actions. He says his religion plays a pivotal role in his decision making. Then he chooses McClurkin to represent him by being a major part of this religious event in South Carolina. Hmmmm.

[DDQ]

40. I agree with you farmboy

[mrreowwr_kittty]

45. You haven't done anything to remove my skepticism. If anything, you've increased it.

You can be anyone you want on the Internet, for one thing, so who knows if you are who you say you are. And you continue to insinuate that Obama picked McClurkin deliberately, in an attempt to appeal to homophobes. Which is disgusting and you are a moron.

Tell me, how does Obama's excellent record on gay issues help him capture the homophobe vote? Dontcha think they have much better candidates to choose from on the GOP side? If you were the average homophobic dumbass, would Obama's selection of Donnie McClurkin as an entertainer (assuming you'd ever even heard of him) outweigh his stalwart support of gay rights, especially when there are more overtly bigotted people like Romney and Huckabee available to you?

Oh yeah, I know, McClurkin is so much more than some self-loathing nit wit, he's actually a secret operative who imparts Obama's message of hate to an audience of Black churchgoers - every one of whom is a mindless raging homophobe barely containing his/her murderous impulses. (Nope, there's never been a not-so-subtle subtext of racism and elitism in portrayals of Donnie McClurkin's fan base. Never.) And Obama has demonstrated repeatedly in his career as a legislator that he will throw gay citizens under the bus. Except wait, he hasn't.

So knock yourself out with what you're trying to do. I seriously doubt you're going to persuade anyone at this point. But nice try with the conspiracy theory angle. :thumbsup:

[farmboy]

51. This isn't about you. I couldn't give a rat's *** what you think.

You are obviously so far gone that there is no helping. Fine. Spew away. Use the cynicism that comes from your years of experience of being a professional blogger, compared to us newbies, to label me as a fraud or my perspective as a "conspiracy theory." Your post is filled with these tactics, as well as that of trying to make Obama's disgusting use of McClurkin less serious by exaggerating what I have said (McClurkin is a "secret operative"; the audience were "barely containing...murderous rage.")

But as angry as it makes you, my understanding of what happened is just as valid as yours. It certainly fits with the narrative Obama's actions wrote. I'll try to make it a little more clear for you, so you don't have to continue to read mistakenly between the lines of my post. I choose not to think that Obama is a homophobe (your word, not mine.) Some of his prior political decisions/votes suggest he was on the progressive side of this issue. However, he showed me, by using McClurkin to soften his pro-gay stances with certain people who have have problems with them, that he will use gays and lesbians in a crass, political way when it benefits him in his march toward the history. That makes me think he will do it again, or even do the same to other groups of individuals if he deteremines it would help him more than hurt.

So I hope to make this hurt more than he expected. Every single second that passes without any apology or recognition of the harm he has done makes it less likely any such apology would be accepted. I doubt that he understood fully the tragic consequences that his decisions will have on individual gay and lesbian men and women, certain ones in more precarious places in their lives than others. I'm fighting for them. I'm fighting to keep others from doing what my three friends did when they took their lives under pressure from society. And I will hold my passion and truthfulness up to your cynicism, pathetic literary techniques of distraction, and pitifull name-calling anytime or place.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

56. Nope. Still not convincing.

And while I was sarcastic, I didn't exaggerate your intent in your OP at all. You very clearly suggested that the McClurkin selection was a deliberately calculated effort by Obama to court homophobes. And now you are suggesting that Obama's selection of McClurkin is directly responsible for the deaths of gays and lesbians, from which I can only conclude that you really do believe that the audience is full of savages who are barely controlling their murderous impulses toward gay people.

But hey, Obama is being compared to Hitler right now on another thread so you've got some catching up to do.

[farmboy]

58. Yes, statements like those McClurkin have made, are directly responsible for making it ok to

verbally bash gays and lesbians and think that they should be "reformed." The outcome of society having this view is that some gays and lesbians do spiral into despair, continue to hide who they really are, and become more and more ashamed or depressed because of the difficulty of living openly and finding partners who can do the same. Some of these people do indeed kill themselves. I don't care if you call this direct or indirect. People die needlessly.

Obama invited someone to speak for him that spouted these views not only before the event but AT the event. Reports are that many in the crowd applaudedly enthusiastically. Of course I suggested Obama purposely courted homophobes because that is exactly what he did. His campaign had to have known of McClurkins' views, statements, and personal history. If he somehow didn't know just how reprehensible McClurkin's statements were before inviting him, he certainly knew in plenty of time to uninvite him and make ammends. He didn't do that.

Savages? Hitler? Again, your hyperbole doesn't serve your arument well. I doubt any of the event goers went home that evening, found their largest kitchen knife, and visited their local gay bar, leaving only after their knife was dripping in blood. But I know that a gay man or lesbian woman out their killed themselves the very day of the event because of their situation. And what Obama did with McClurkin helped make it happen or certainly will make it all the more likely with other such precarious inidividuals.

Really, you keep destroying your defense by not even targeting the actual, original statement but rather what you think I think. Just ask; I'll tell you what I think and you won't have to keep guessing and missing the mark so badly.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

60. Now you are accusing Obama of driving gay people to suicide.

Listen, I'm done with you so I'm going to give you the same suggestion I gave another DUer (a rabid Edwards supporter who was trying to use the McClurkin incident to drive a wedge in Obama support):

If you really are convinced that an Obama candidacy, or presidency, represents such a grave threat to the civil rights and safety of the LGBT community, then it is incumbent upon you to do something about it. Immediately. Go out into the community and inform people about this. Go to all the LGBT organizations in your area and speak out about how you think McClurkin's appearance at that concert imperils the gay community. Start your own organization to get the message out. Form a group of protesters and camp out at the Obama campaign office in your city. Follow Obama around the country to protest him. At the very least, approach the LGBT outreach of the campaign and make your feelings known. Typing irate messages into a lefty discussion board does not cut it as meaningful action. It just makes you look like yet another keyboard jockey impotently flailing away.

Just sayin' :shrug:

[farmboy]

61. "Listen, I'm done with you." Promise? Like I said, this isn't about you.

However, when you come to a point that you don't think everyone with an opinion different than yours deserves to be lambasted, belittled, and driven away from DU, maybe you can be effective here. Until than happens, I consider your retreat a sign that your defense is ineffective. Obama started this. Obama continues this by not explaining or apologizing. When I say some of us will never forget or let others forget what he did, I mean it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

64. But you're not going to actually, you know, get off your lazy ass and do anything about it

Nope. You're going to continue with your keyboard activism. Listen, you don't have to worry about me anymore because you're going on ignore so that I won't have to see any of your drivel when Obama wins in NH anymore. Somehow I know you'll be right there, joining in the pity party.

[Anouka]

9. How are these threads continually getting 6 recommendations?

and they've barely begun?

Who are these trolls?

[IndianaJones]

10. Joe Momma. nt.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[IndianaJones]

13. its better than sock puppets I guess. nt.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

15. I dunno, I'm kind of tempted to give this one a rec. It had a quirky charm about it.

Nah...

[ruggerson]

19. Pretty good for a sockpuppet

bordering on brilliant.

k&r

[IndianaJones]

21. lol. nt.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. Off to bed now. Hoping to see my whole ignore list on here in the morning.

Of course, that will require me to take them off ignore so I'll be facing a tough dilemma in the morning.

[IndianaJones]

25. nighty night. nt.

[Occam Bandage]

26. See, that's the problem with ignore lists. You miss the best stuff.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

32. Gotta give it one more kick before I turn in! Come on, Ignore list, you can do it! nt

[origin1286]

39. Since when...

...does having a friend with an unpopular view mean you subscribe to that unpopular view?

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

41. Patti LaBelle:"I try to stay away from churches who don't accept gays. I can't be a part of phony."

Guess Obama *can* be a part of phony though.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3974344&mesg_id=3974344

[LostinVA]

44. WOW! I never heard that Patti LaBelle quote -- thanks

I knew I liked her for a reason! (Loved her as Dwayne Wayne's mom on "A Different World.")

[mrreowwr_kittty]

50. Oh really?

Gay icon Patti Labelle and the homobigot pastor.

http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2006/04/gay-icon-patti-labelle-and-homobigot.html


OMFG!!1!! PATTI IS A GAYBASHER JUST LIKE OBAMA!1!! THIS IS HUGH!!!!!1!!!1!

Quick! Someone start a bunch of threads about how Patti LaBelle wants to throw the gay community under the bus to sell records!

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

52. I believe that quote was in response to the controversy you cite

She said she didn't know about Mr. Long's views, which you can't say about Obama, since if he and his staff didn't know about McClurkin when they booked him (the only vetting needed was a simple google search), they certainly heard about his ex-gay odiousness from gay groups urging him to drop the performer.

Here is Patti's full quote:

"I try to stay away from churches who don't accept gays. I mean, I can't be a part of phony. It's not God's way. You embrace all people. I think that's what God wants, for all of us to love all of us, no matter who we are or what we do. And it's not a sin to be gay."

[mrreowwr_kittty]

53. Really, it's not necessary. I'm well aware of the new rule on DU

Associating with known homophobes is ONLY reprehensible if your name is Barack Obama. Everyone else gets excuses, free passes, and justifications.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

55. It's only reprehensible if you defend the action, as Obama has

Plus as I pointed out, Patti claims she didn't know the man's views, and that isn't the case with Obama/McClurkin. Show me the quote where Obama says homophobes should be shunned, as Patti's quote does. Perhaps his recent comment to The Advocate?:

"These events have provided an important opportunity for us to confront a difficult fact: There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community."

Um, no, that's all about coddling homophobes. That's all about how homophobes shouldn't be called bigots, because it's just their religious beliefs, it's just their deeply held moral convictions.

Hardly compares to Patti's quote saying they should be shunned, does it.

And btw, if you know of an Obama quote where he says homosexuality isn't a sin, could you please link that? I'm not saying he hasn't said that, just curious to see if there's a quote that proves it. TIA

[mrreowwr_kittty]

57. Where do you get from that quote that he thinks homophobes shouldn't be called bigots?

I read it as him saying that there are otherwise good and decent people who happen to be bigots on this issue. He's a politician so of course he's going to use a more tactful term than that. If anything, it's quite remarkable that he's even doing that. I never hear politicians acknowledging the various types of bigotry that still exist, be it racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Usually they act like America is color and gender-blind and we're all beyond that stuff now.

As far as homosexuality as a sin is concerned, I don't know his position on that but he does belong to a very progressive church in Chicago that is one of few predominantly Black churches in the area that welcomes gay members?

Did you know that Barack Obama has publically addressed homophobia in the Black community?

http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/09/video-barack-obama-rewind/

Scroll down to video on it.

[FredScuttle]

42. When you give the "ex-gay" clown friend a mike and a stage to spew homophobic flth

and then go 2+ months without apologizing for it. I don't believe Obama is a homophobe, but he has to answer for his decision to place a bigot in the starring role in his campaign event and not offer one word of apology to the LGBT community for this bigot's hateful speech at the event.

[IndianaJones]

46. its "sense when" nt.

[chascarrillo]

48. Its "cents win" nt

Bwahahaha.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

49. Because of something Patti LaBelle said, apparently. nt

[RoadRage]

62. Dude.. just vote

for Huckabee and then see what happens to those suicide rates... seriously.

WTF? I know this is just bait, and i'm done taking it - but get over ONE incident that happend quite a while ago. MOVE ON

What are you going to do when he either IS the Dem nominee against a Huckabee.. how are you going to bitch then?

Or, if horribly he doesn't win the nomination, what on earth will you do with your time?

[farmboy]

65. Dude, how about making a case and not just slamming and degrading. Doesn't do well by your candidate

Dude.. just voe for Huckabee and then see what happens to those suicide rates... seriously.

(Huckabee is a known quantity. I'd never vote for him. He will never be president. Obama might. And Obama invited someone to speak on his behalf, to represent him at his own event, that have said and done things that cause harm to gays and lesbians. Huckabees statements and actions match. In this one very serious incident, Obama's do not.)

WTF? I know this is just bait, and i'm done taking it - but get over ONE incident that happend quite a while ago. MOVE ON

(Time makes no difference. It happened. It was vile. Obama has so far refused to apology, to recognize the harm of his actions, and has barely commented on it at all. It will never be forgotten until he at least does these things. That is his decision to possible rectify what now is becoming less and less rectifiable.)

What are you going to do when he either IS the Dem nominee against a Huckabee.. how are you going to bitch then? (Your "bitch" slam doesn't negate the argument. Shooting the messengar doesn't make the message go away. I will continue to speak out against Obama's actions until Obama does something to make me believe otherwise, nominee or not.)

Or, if horribly he doesn't win the nomination, what on earth will you do with your time? (Childish...just childish. I will continue to find time to live my life and help gay and lesbian young people see that their lives are valuable and deserving of respect, no matter what some hate-filled ex-gay ministers say or who chooses them as representatives at political events.)

[RoadRage]

66. Dude.. no one cares if you don't vote for Obama..

Seriously. We have enough votes.. we don't need ya!

And I have several "Gay" friends who will vote for him in your place - so now worries, Obama will still get the Gay vote, even if one of them isn't yours. In case you were worried...

[farmboy]

72. You're right that it matters not who I alone vote for. But it does matter that more and more people

know the truth about what Obama did having McClurkin denigrate gays and lesbians at his political event without so much as an apology or explanation. And believe me, more and more will know.

The scrutiny under which Obama will come is just beginning to grow. Very few people know about this right now because the MSM decided it wasn't a big enough deal. The "right" folks weren't offended or hurt to make it a big enough story. But that can change.

And much of the gay vote will not go to Obama unless he deals with this. Read gay newspapers and publications all over the country. It is a hot topic amongst us, and most of the discussion is very negative towards Obama, your limited group of friends aside.

The final vote has not been taken. Be careful not to claim victory before it is time, for that time may never come. His ability to separate and divide people at the same time he says he is doing otherwise, the smugness with which he sometimes speaks these days, sure does seem to be spreading among his fans. Look in the mirror. It is not pretty.

[CyberPieHole]

63. K&R for Donnie McClurkin...n/t

[Dr. Strange]

67. Next step: go trolling on discussion boards.

And hope I don't get caught!

[FredScuttle]

68. Kick for Pastor Donnie

n/t