In another attempt to connect with people of faith in South Carolina, presidential hopeful Barack Obama has decided to reach out by going on a concert tour with gospel artists, including known homophobe and recloseted homosexual Donnie McClurkin.
McClurkin believes one can pray away the gay, that it is a choice, and, according to Keith Boykin, Donnie compares gays and lesbians to liars.All three of the dates of the “Embrace the Change” tour are in South Carolina, where Mr. Obama is locked in battle with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for black voters.
Gospel acts including Mary Mary, Donnie McClurkin and Hezekiah Walker, Byron Cage and the Mighty Clouds of Joy are scheduled to appear.
“This is another example of how Barack Obama is defying conventional wisdom about how politics is done and giving new meaning to meeting people at the grassroots level,” Joshua DuBois, the campaign’s religious affairs director, said in a release. “This concert tour is going to bring new people into the political process and engage people of faith in an unprecedented way.”
McClurkin explains, “There are certain things like, you know, anybody who has a lying problem; they get to the point where they hate being so, having such a lack of character that they make a change.”The unmarried gospel singer and preacher at Perfecting Faith Church in New York is also Bush supporter; McClurkin performed for Dear Leader and friends at the Republican National Convention.In the same interview, McClurkin argues again that homosexuality is simply a lifestyle choice. “There’s a group that says, ‘God made us this way,’ but then there’s another group that knows God didn’t make them that way,” he says. Notice the circularity in his rhetoric. The people who say that God made them gay don’t know what they’re talking about because the people who say God did not make them gay are right. Well how do they know if someone was born gay or not if they are not gay themselves? It’s insulting and presumptuous of others to tell gays and lesbians that they’re not smart enough even to know who they are.
64 Responses to “Why is Obama touring with ‘ex-gay’ homophobe Donnie McClurkin?”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
These gospel artists are merely “scheduled to appear.” This McClurkin might show up; he might not. The blog post headline makes it seem like McClurkin will be riding in the campaign caravan.
Thank goodness McClurkin isn’t married to an unsuspecting woman.
That’s a pretty weak reading of the original story, Hector. The story hints, at least, that the Obama campaign planned and put this thing together, which would include presumably, selecting the acts who would appear. When I wrote about this earlier, I wondered if the Obama campaign just didn’t think this through first, or if it’s a way to try to move black voters away from Clinton, but right now it’s all speculation.
I find it hard to grudge Obama for this. As long as he doesn’t do any homophobe pandering, what’s the harm? I don’t think he has to be of one mind with everyone who shows up at an event he’s campaigning at, and certainly as long as you’re doing gospel shows, there’ll be some homophobes present. He’s just trying to connect with a certain constituency who likely have varying views on gay issues. If he can find support among people who maybe don’t share his views on such issues, then fine, as long as he remains clear on where he stands.
This is indicative of the closed world of the politicos– they only know the same twelve people and so if you need to be seen in public to produce appearance X you get to choose only from the very narrow pool of people your publicist has on their really tiny Blackberry.
Who do we know who is A) Black B) religious and C) willing to be seen with a politician? Donnie McClurkin it is!
I’m trying really hard to continue supporting Obama, since I like his vision and he’s a Hawaii boy, but his pandering to the worst impulses of the religious is beginning to stretch my good will.
I think this is an important thing to watch, because this is the sort of small thing that signals what might be the way a future Obama admisnitration might work.
I think it matters a great deal just how it plays out.
There is some merit in the idea that it is okay to include people and be involved with people who hold different, even antithetical views, but it also matters just how influential or associated with those views they are, and how central to the event they are.
As long as the event is not homophobic - even in the sort of code that so much of the family values rhetoric uses, having someone whose personal views are homophobic, but who does not make a point of them at the event, isn’t so much of an issue for me. But it would be different if it was someone who was clearly and specifically associated publicly with homophobia.
To use a far-outdated example, back in the Anita Bryant days, including people who agreed with her would be one thing, headlining her would be another.
Does anyone know more about this particular guy? Under what circumstances did he share these opinions?
My thoughts exactly, Marc. Disappointing.
Gospel concerts are the worst impulses of the religious?
“McClurkin has spoken out against homosexuality on several occasions. He states that homosexuality is a spiritual issue, from which one can be delivered from by the power and grace of God. In his book, Eternal Victim, Eternal Victor (ISBN 1-56229-162-9), he writes: “The abnormal use of my sexuality continued until I came to realize that I was broken and that homosexuality was not God’s intention… for my masculinity.”[6] He then describes himself as going through a process by which he became “a saved and sanctified man”.”
from Wikipedia
Dear Barack Obama
thank you for selling out the LGBT community in order to gain some votes.
I marched in the Pride Parade with Barack when he was running for Senate. The man is not a homophobe. But that’s just a personal anecdote and I’m just some guy on the Internet, you’ll all have to make up your own minds but please consider the whole of his career, not this unfortunate incident (which I like to believe was some kind of staff screwup)
“We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and yes, we’ve got gay friends in the red states.”
His bipartisan instincts have been much mocked on the blogs but I don’t think his are of the Broder/Lieberman variety. He really does have a vision of us as one. A little bit naive maybe, but I think if you’re crazy enough to want to be the leader of 300 million people, naivete is not the worst quality to have in the mix.
So is McClurkin considered to be gay? If he says that prayer has removed his urges, why would he not be believed? Are we claiming to know what is going on in his head? I’m not jumping into this camp but rather trying to understand the logic used to dismiss his claims. Prayer ministries claim thousands of “delivered” people. Is each one a liar? How are their claims, which can’t be supported by anything other than their future words and actions, different than the claims of gay people who say they are born that way - whose claims can not be supported by anything other than their words and actions. It has always bothered me from a consitency of argument standpoint that we extend the “you say you’re gay and that you’re born that way - you’re the expert - and who are we to question your claims” protection to gay people who conduct themselves in a certain way but take it away from another group of them. I have absolutely no personal knowledge of someone being delivered from being gay, and have no idea whether it is possible or not. But it seems counter intuitive to claim we know that deliverance is impossible and everyone who says it has happened to them is full of crap when we accept other claims on face value about the origin of homosexuality and it’s nature with zero supprting proof. Shouldn’t the entire discussion remain pretty wide open if that is the burden of evidence required? Just musing….
Dr. T, just read soopermouse’s post, and decide if there’s something wrong with that or not. Most people would probably agree that he has the right to self-identify as whatever he wants, but the rest of that stuff is just straight up bigotry which only makes his claims all the more dubious. He has a clear motivation for wanting to think himself “cured” of being gay in that he thinks it’s something to be cured of in the first place.
“zero proof” except, of course, for the large and constantly growing body of solid peer-reviewed scientific evidence that sexual orientation has a large genetic component.
Beth - There is research that supports both sides of the debate on the genetics of homosexuality. The University of Illinois team that mapped the human genome said there was no genetic basis for homosexuality and environmental factors were contributors. I am neither a geneticist nor gay. I don’t know if homosexuality is genetic or not. But there certainly is no identified gene that one can point to and say if it is present one is gay and if it is not one is not gay. With the lack of such a clear indicator, society has been accepting the word of those that are gay as to the nature of their attractions - until a gay person has a different take on it than the majority. It seems inconsistent to accept the word of the minority X percent of society that is gay on how they became that way but not the X percent of gays who say for them it is reversible.
I have never met a single person who claims from personal experience that they are gay and therefore, homosexuality should be imposed on everyone else, or used as a criterion for civil rights and obligations that everyone else takes for granted, nor that because their experience shows that being gay is natural for them, the claims of others to be heterosexual are bogus and should be dismissed out of hand.
While I am certain that there are private individuals who claim to be ex-gay who are deeply committed to the belief that it worked for them but should never be imposed on anyone else, the public voice of the movement, and the voices of those who choose to use the movement certainly are all about giving no rights to gay people.
Dr. T -
Gotta love how fast “we couldn’t specifically point to a specific gene set that undeniably causes homosexuality” becomes “no genetic basis.”
And regardless of whether there is or there is not specific proof of purely genetic causality, why does that somehow always translate directly into “it’s a choice, so you get no rights.”
If the ex-gays would stop at “I am no longer gay,” those of us who are gay would not so vehemently oppose them. But they then proceed to tell us what our experience is and what everyone else should do about it. And people like you dive in to defend them.
At most, at the very most, you should take people to task for defining another person’s self-identity. But if we do it, we don’t do it in a vacuum. The history of the ex-gay movement is strewn with high profile ex-gays who eventually admit that they were lying all along. Skepticism isn’t inappropriate.
You say you are neither a geneticist nor gay. But of course, you know far more about our experience than we do. So kind of you to define it for us.
Exactly, Peter.
this unfortunate incident (which I like to believe was some kind of staff screwup)
If so, takes about one second to fix it. We’ll see what Obama does.
Because he’s losing his intelligence by consorting with mainline Washington.
If there is something we don’t need, it’s a tent revival in politics.
Well, I see McClurkin as a victim of the ex-gay movement (and so, of course, is his wife, poor woman).
If Obama plans to give him a platform to talk the ex-gay talk, then you can judge him: if McClurkin is just showing up to sing, not preach others into his terrible lifestyle, then maybe Obama just hopes that someday McClurkin will see the light and quit believing in a God who made him gay purely to be cruel to him.
No kidding. Most behavioral things with a genetic basis are thought to involve a multitude of genes working together in as-yet-not-understood-ways. It’s not going to be as easy as finding the gene for a physical characteristic like color vision/color blindness.
But also, please note that I never said it was “purely genetic”– the concordance rate for identical twins is substantially higher than for fraternal twins but it is not 100%, so clearly environmental influences play a role as well as genetic factors. Several studies are pointing to a probable influence the prenatal environment, especially hormones in utero. (So note that, although in utero is an “environmental” influence and nothing you’re going to find on a genome, one is still “born that way”).
There’s also the issue of putting people into dichotomous categories of gay/not-gay in research like the twin studies — a pair of identical twins could both be born with the genetic capacity to be bisexual, and one ends up expressing that through a predominantly homosexual life, while the other expresses his sexuality heterosexually. I think it’s probably like intelligence: it seems individuals are born with a genetically-determined range of possible intelligence, but then experiences and resources available to you determine whether you reach the top of that potential or are stuck at the bottom. Similarly, people are probably born with a range of possible sexuality (Kinsey-scale-like) and environment contributes to people’s expression within that range (which is likely a narrow range for some people, and quite broad for others).
Does anyone else find Donnie McClurkin’s name hilarious? As in, McLurkin’ (in the closet)
“You say you are neither a geneticist nor gay. But of course, you know far more about our experience than we do. So kind of you to define it for us.”
No - 100% the exact opposite. Read my posts again. I extend the right to definition of source and experience to the individual who’s living this life absent any clearly responsible outside agent. I simply extend that same right to all - current, former, struggling, confused, (fill in you adjective) - gays, not just the loud and proud crowd.
Prayer ministries claim thousands of “delivered” people. Is each one a liar?
As Atrios would say, “Yes.
“This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.”
The complex explanation is that there are a lot of things they’re lying about.
Which would have ever so much more credibility if you weren’t chiming in to vigorously defend the rights of those who DON’T support such rights.
But glad to know you are ideologically pure. I bask in your presence. Thank you for sharing.
Moral judgments are not, as such, signs of contempt. Moral judgments about homosexuality, as such, are not signs of contempt.
I know such judgments are often enough used to express contempt, but the link between the two is not absolute.
There’s a point when sober thinking has to intervene in political rhetoric, yes?
Wow, there is a lot of really strange homophobia on this thread. What the hell?
Dr. T, I don’t give a shit whether or not you can “cure gay.” The very problem is that people see “gay” as something that needs a “cure.” It doesn’t. And the suggestion that it does is hateful. I don’t care if you’re born gay or become gay or what, because it is still a part of one’s identity. Should we try to cure black, next? Or cure woman? Notice how equally silly, absurd and offensive such concepts are?
Mike, I will agree that moral judgments of an action can theoretically exist without concept for the person who commits it. But to judge an act is to hold contempt for it. And since being gay is something that you are, not something that you do (like, say, going to the movies) it is a moral judgment of that person. Would you honestly suggest that person who thinks that being female is morally wrong does not have contempt for women?
I’m pissed off at Obama right now, big time. It’s bull. I don’t care if the guy is just going to sing. The fact is, these “let’s cure the gay” groups are hate groups. Period. They purposely breed ignorance and prejudice and tell people that who they are is wrong. This man may very well be a victim of a hateful cult, or he may not. I don’t know. But brainwashed or not, presidential candidates should not be inviting members of hate groups to perform at their events. Ever.
Why do we have such a problem seeing prejudice against gays in the same way that we see any other prejudice? If a lot of the comments on this thread were in reference to any other minority group, I can’t imagine so many people being willing to publicly speak them. But when it’s about gays? Hey, sure, why not. It’s really quite awful.
TPM has a statement from Obama denouncing McClurkin’s views.
But no statement on whether or not McLurkin is still going to appear.
I don’t really understand the extent of the anger at Obama at all. McLurkin has a reputation as a really talented singer and he is going to perform at a gospel concert. He will be there as far as I know only in the capacity of a performer not a political spokesperson or anything. I agree with Peter that this is potentially bad depending on how it all goes down, and that it is worth watching how Obama handles it, but I don’t think you can judge him by the personal beliefs of a singer who performs at an event, especially if he makes a point of not backing down on his principles and hopefully makes them crystal clear. He talks about uniting traditionally politically disparate groups, and he can’t do that by not engaging them.
Aman: The reason why so many of us queers are so upset and astonished by Obama’s decision is that he has aligned himself with a professional homophobe.
General Comment: “Ex-gay” ministries are scams that harm peoples’ lives and are used to push hateful political agendas.
The founders of Exodus, the most famous “ex-gay” ministry, fell in love, left the ministry, and had a commitment ceremony.
When you talk to former “ex-gays,” you get the following picture of the ministries:
1) The vast majority of people leave quickly.
2) The leaders admit to homosexual and lesbian feelings when the cameras are off.
3) They didn’t become even slightly less gay for a minute.
4) They wasted part of their lives.
Pay close attention to what they claim to be delivered from. For most of the “ex-gay” movement and the fundamentalist Christian movement with which they’re associated, there is no such thing as the gay orientation - there is only gay behavior. To them, if you do not engage in gay behavior, you are not gay.
To us, gay is an orientation. If you experience sexual desire for the same sex, you are gay, even if you never act on it. The ex-gays call this “temptation”, and never stop to ask why most people don’t happen to be tempted in that particular way - or more accurately, they think everyone is (or can be, under the right circumstances) tempted that way. (The matter of why their belief that anyone can “become” gay is bullshit is rather too complex for this comment, and I’d have to refresh myself on the psychiatric details anyway.)
We consider the ex-gay movement to be a fraud because it never changes the orientation; they claim it is for real because their members do not engage in same-sex behavior again, even though they are still “tempted”.
Aman
I think the problem with Obama going on tour with this guy is that by doing so he is tacitly endorsing this guy’s views. I also this that Obama’s staff “denouncing” this guy’s views is just damage control, and ineffective. The oly acceptable measure is to remove this guy from the tour regarding how talented he might be. Not like this guy was the only act on the bill or anything.
What bothers us is the fact that Obama seems to be silently pandering to a certain minority, namely the anty gay wingnuts, and that is a big motherfucking red flag for all of us. Where I am from we say that if you lay in the trough the pigs will eat you, and that is what this is about.
We all know this tour is an attempt from Obama to shave some of the black support in that state away from Hillary, and it looks like he has chosen to do so by pandering to the dirtiest cvorner of that demographic slice, and us lefties kinda like our candidates to not pander to wingnuts thank you very much.
If this is a mistake, Mc Clurkey would be off the tour.
Something that’s been said time and again, but apparently bears repeating. I didn’t choose to be straight– why would I ever think that people choose whether of not to be gay? Now, I can accept that a great many people fall more into the area of bisexuality and can choose which impulses to act on– and some people who claim to be “cured” of being “gay” are not ex-gay but formerly acting-homosexual now-acting-heterosexual bisexuals.
If love could be chosen, heartbreak would be a lot less common.
Dr T,
People generally never have enough reliable information, certainly not checked diligently against possible counter-hypotheses, to make their decisions about what is going in the world around them and how things work based on the fussy reasoning you want us to use. What people–what I at any rate–generally do is, look for (or are handed) explanations for things that work well enough, until they don’t. And we evaluate evidence in that light.
A couple years ago I was on a Star Trek website, and people were arguing about gayness–whether the show should have more explicitly recognized queer folk or not, which led to argument about whether queerness was some kind of problem or not IRL. (I was amazed at how many right-wing, and fundamentalist (not always the same people) Trek fans there are…) There was this one guy who kept waving around “studies” about the alleged links between gay men and pedophila, blah blah blah.
Well, as I pointed out to him then–I didn’t give a rat’s ass about his “studies;” I have a sister. (Well, she transgendered about 6 yrs ago so actually what I have now is another brother.) My sister was lesbian all her life, clearly. She was equally clearly in no way less of a person or more sinful or otherwise deficient than I am. Actually in terms of life accomplishments and general usefulness and being fun to have around she quite puts me in the shade. And she’s a rock of moral integrity, by any meaningful definition.
And of course I’ve known lots of gay people, and know of their great many accomplishments through history, and so when anyone trots out a “study” or a program of action that implies or relies on the theory that there is anything wrong with a diversity of sexual preferences, that claim is out the window with me. It doesn’t have any merits at all, because it sets out to contradict painfully acquired life experience.
So here we have a man, Donnie McLurkin, who thinks that his own sexual orientation is a terrible cross to bear. What he needs is someone to tell him not to worry about it; if that message is not one he wants to hear, then the man has issues. Very common issues in this society, but I obviously can’t listen to what he says about the way he sees things in general in the same way as I would someone whose personal views make sense to me. It doesn’t mean I don’t listen at all; I’ve been very wrong about things in the past and I’ve changed my mind on big issues.
But the way you represent yourself as being some kind of impartial visitor from Mars or wherever who has never considered these issues before and now wishes to determine where you stand by some kind of laboratory verdict, as though all human history and your own neighborhood isn’t an ongoing demonstration of applied homophobia versus more or less enlightened tolerance to acceptance to embrace; as though those scientists with their “studies” aren’t themselves caught up in the social and political controversy–well, that seems even more untrustworthy and disingenuous than some poor confused fundie. At least the latter declares themself frankly against even tolerance of queerness, and gives their reasons why. It’s crazy troll logic they use, but it’s familiar enough. You are pretending to be some kind of neutral, therefore more reasonable, party. And I think that’s suspicious as hell.
If you have reasons why you hope “praying the gay away” might be effective, say so. When one understands that queer is OK and the world would be a lesser place without it, then not only are “cures” irrelevant, they are a bad thing even if they could be done.
And what sort of world-view makes it plausible that prayer or any strictly religious devotion might have this effect anyway? Well, one that first of all regards gayness as problematic, and second–actually more importantly–takes a God akin to the orthodox version of the Christian God for granted, as proven fact. Surely the God of Christianity or Islam can do anything, but if prayer does the trick reliably–then that’s an indictment of all the queer folk who don’t do as they are told; in that sense they are “choosing” to sin, and therefore deserve to go to Hell, and be persecuted in this life too. So of course the fundies are going to say they can do this; they have to.
But of course even among believers, it doesn’t actually work. You’re fond of statistics; well you’ve been given some. They are dismal.
It’s just more of the old dominator misery machine cranking out more pain and suffering for the sake of divide, rule, and recruit for “God’s” army, in the service of worldly powers that be.
Well perhaps you have some studies that convince you this is unlikely somehow. All I know is, the world I’ve actually been living in, in which queer folk are not afflicted by anything other than the bigotry of their neighbors.
I fully appreciate the fact that queer is ok for many people who are queer. Great for them. I also appreciate the fact that many people who are queer are not ok with it. The assumption from everyone who is queer and is cool with it is that those people are fucked up and wrong for feeling uneasy about something they are comfortable with. So they assign boogeymen to the uneasiness - society makes them feel bad, religion is doing it to them, if their family supported them more they’d be comfortable, etc., etc., whatever. It’s all someone else rationalizing and explaining another’s behavior and thoughts. In the EXACT same way queer folks who are cool with it hate it when the other side of the debate tells them they are fucked up and deviant for their lives/loves - I think it’s fucked up when the cool to be queer crowd piles on someone/everyone who has issues with their life/love. Nobody is hating on gays here. I’m saying you should back the fuck off people who are gay and who are going through or have gone through questionning and choices about it that may be different than what you did. Within minority communities, the harshest treatment always come from one another. Get outside the minority norm and you get bithchslapped. You say - oh they’re condemning me…oh they’re attacking my life with their words - you’re doing the exact same thing to them. And of course, you take any criticism whatsoever of anything a gay person ever does and call it homophobia. Pa-fucking-thetic. Because there could never possibly be a different opinion on the subject of homosexuality that isn’t a clear indcator that gays are feared. It just keeps you from having to engage ideas you don’t like. Hiding behind that word is a copout. You take the conversations from - why can’t these gays act this way - to - YOU’RE A HOMOPHOBE AND YOU’RE SAYING BEING GAY IS WRONG! - which was never said in any posts anywhere. But it’s a nice fallback screaming, made-up-victim spot to land..
Gotta love those Olympian heights your scientific detachment takes you to on this issue, Dr. T, and how you think that people running screaming for acceptance right back to the source of their oppression, literally offering to give their souls to the very devil that tormented them if only the bullies will stop picking on them, morally equivalent to queer folk who live with, and stand up to as best they can, this organized bullying by the powerful all their lives.
My notions of right and wrong include taking into account who has the power and who doesn’t, and judging accordingly. It’s still a heteronormative society, it’s still a dangerous world to be “deviant” in, and I hardly think that the disapproval of out queer folk and us allies, of those who are Quislings of their oppressors (who are, thereby, oppressors of everyone) equates to the homophobia that we all grew up with, as potential victims of and inflictors of, so often simultaneously. The latter has done tremendous harm, the former is strictly a matter of moral force.
“If you have reasons why you hope “praying the gay away” might be effective, say so.”
I hope anyone who is tormented can find peace. If this works for some people, I’m all for it. If it doesn’t work - avoid it at all costs.
Dr.T: “Society makes them feel bad, religion is doing it to them, if their family supported them, they’d be more comfortable” are genuine reasons for internalized homphobia-they are NOT arbitrary bogeymen set up to “rationalize” it.
Should we try to cure black, next?
Well, Michael Jackson sure tried to cure his blackness. Would black people have condemned a candidate for hiring him to perform, say, back in the Thriller era, before his young boy pajama party habits became widely known?
Oh I take some serious issue with this statement.
Harsh treatment received by members of the LGBTQ minority community for being a member of said group includes, but is not limited to: Beatings. Murders. Agitation against laws to reduce / prevent school bullying, employment bias, marriage lite, marriage equality.
These harsh treatments are not coming from other members of the LGBTQ community. These things are being done to the community by hateful, by fearful, by ignorant “you’re intolerant of our intolerance” assholes.
I bet your “other side” studies, o-so-worthy-of-consideration, come from NARTH. C’mon, admit it - you’re reading and believing NARTH studies, aren’t you?
Ok, now I’m annoyed.
teac said it first, faster, and better, but I need to add -
Prove it. Dr. T.
I mean it. Show me this harshest treatment. I don’t mean some hand-waving anecdotes about people being rude or not inviting an ex-gay over for brunch anymore. I mean show me the equivalent of taking away children, of losing homes, jobs, lives for f*’s sake.
Show me.
Dr. T, that is just so specious, that whole thing there. What’s funny is that any clear headed disinterested party would find the ex-gay stuff to be overwhelmingly transparent. You have to ignore so much to see it otherwise. A bunch of people answered you in a pretty polite reasonable way, none of them shouting about being a victim as, by the way, you just did there. Why don’t you look into the various ex-gay movements for yourself, come back and tell us in a rational, unbiased way what you think of them and why.
Obama’s always had a soft spot for religious fundamentalists. Recall, he first got peoples’ backs up when he said the Democrats basically deserve to be hated by the relgious, since we’re not deferential enough to them.
That put me off then, and this latest incident should be seen in that context.
Honestly, the more I see of Obama, the more I like Hillary. And, believe me, a few months ago I would NEVER have believed that possible.
Unfortunately, gays and lesbians have to share a party with homophobes, just as environmentalists have to share a party with union members who want to open ANWR to drilling, just as pro-choice women have to share a party with good-works-minded Christians who don’t like abortion.
How much ideological purity do we (all of us who support GLBT rights) think we can demand of our candidates? Is it not enough that a candidate support many GLBT issues (in Obama’s case: civil unions) or does that candidate have to forswear ever being in the same room as a homophobe, even as there are plenty of homophobes in the Democratic Party? Demanding this kind of ideological purity does no one, especially gays and lesbians, any favors.
Hillary has associated herself with the Reverend Harold Mayberry, whom the San Francisco Chronicle has quoted as an opponent of same-sex marriage who compares gays to thieves.
So you’re not going to find any ideological purity with Hillary.
Obama campaign releases statement…
Dr. T.
I will try to use small words. The guy in question not only defines his own experience, that for him, the way to deal with same-sex attraction that fits best into his life is to deny those attractions through prayer.
If that was all he did, while I would be deeply skeptical (both from personal reasons - it sure as hell didn’t work for me when I wasted a chunk of my life on it, and from more general ones, such as the fact that there are huge numbers of ex-ex-gays who very clearly state just how much of a failure it all is, and the science that supports the same conclusion), my response would be “whatever works for him. How sad.”
But he doesn’t stop there, nor do the leaders (and users) of the ex-gay movement. Their (deeply suspicious) claims to have been cured ALWAYS accompany using those claims as a basis to deny MY rights and those of every other gay person.
Essentially, you are telling US to live and let live and let the man claim his own experience for himself. Well, bullshit.
It is the difference between an individual woman saying that she found the workplace stressful and demeaning, and has found peace and fulfillment as a housewife, and a woman acting as the spokesperson for a large group using that experience as the basis to roll back suffrage or any other womens right.
Do you think it would be inappropriate to complain if someone who was running for President headlined a singer who was also famous as an anti-women’s rights speaker?
The other f-ing huge problem with the ex-gay movement is that nearly universally, these people claim that they are gay because they were molested or beaten or abused, and that they fell into the “gay lifestyle” of bars, anonymous sex, dehumanizing relationships, and fear and hiding.
Those are bad things, but the fact that not all gay people live that life, and that many who did have found their deliverance through embracing their homosexuality in a more affirming and stable way is completely left out. They don’t present deliverance through prayer as AN option. It is a requirement. And even though it doesn’t work for the vast majority of those who even try it, much less the rest of us who don’t see a need to, it is held as the only option.
This isn’t about his personal identity - because HE made it not about his personal identity the moment he made his pulpit the place to condemn all the rest of us from.
If Obama claimed he was for women’s rights and headlined the equvalent anti-feminist, and someone showed up on a board explaining in deeply patronizing terms how unreasonable we all were, what reaction would you expect?
“Dr.T: “Society makes them feel bad, religion is doing it to them, if their family supported them, they’d be more comfortable” are genuine reasons for internalized homphobia-they are NOT arbitrary bogeymen set up to “rationalize” it.”
No, you have no idea why someone would want to stop being gay - you just use these generalities to paint them as liars. I’m not arguing that these issues don’t exist - I’m arguing that gay people who are uncomfortable for some reason with their situation are unique and have their own reasons for those feelings. When they voice them they are dismissed with generalities about how they just don’t know who they are because of all these kinds of reasons.
“Prove it. Dr. T.
I mean it. Show me this harshest treatment.”
Ok. Compare how many gay men die of or are infected with AIDS each year infected by other gay men? Compare that to how many gay men are killed by nongay men for being gay each year? The stats are not even in the same ballpark. Gay men are perpetrating violence against their own community and members therein by willfully engaging in deadly sexual practices with oneanother to a much higher degree than violence emanating from the homophobia of the outside world, both as a percentage of perpatrators and in raw numbers.
Prove it. Dr. T… Show me this harshest treatment.Compare how many gay men die of or are infected with AIDS each year infected by other gay men? … Gay men are perpetrating violence against their own community and members therein by willfully engaging in deadly sexual practices with oneanotherAaaand Dr T suddenly drops the “all… gays, not just the loud and proud crowd” / “queer is ok for many people who are queer” pretenses.Oh goodness this site does NOT like nested blockquotes. Odd, it worked in preview. Trying that last post again:
Aaaand Dr T suddenly drops the “all… gays, not just the loud and proud crowd” / “queer is ok for many people who are queer” pretenses.
I haven’t dropped a thing. Be queer and be proud. I’m sorry, is killing eachother in the black community somehow different than killing eachother in the gay community? Light skinned blacks hate on dark skinned blacks. Loud and proud queers hate on uneasy queers. It’s all the same man. Be proud - but don’t hate and kill.
The vast majority of HIV transmission occurs due to ignorance or carelessness rather than malice, which puts it in a different category than a hate crime. It’s a sign the community has a public health problem, not a sign that the community is made up of homicidal homos out to murder each other with bad T-cells.
But let’s put that aside, and focus on my own community. Lesbians have the lowest HIV-infection rate of any social group, well below straight women. By your logic, lesbians have a wonderful community, one which should be emulated by straight men and women. If you think there’s something wrong with being a homosexual man because if the higher risk of contacting HIV, then logically, homosexual women are the purest of the pure. I await your campaign urging straight women to leave the violence of STD vector-ing straight men and embrace lesbianism for the greater good.
I’ll get that toaster oven yet.
Raincitygirl’s got the main point here about HIV transmission. You’d have to be able to show that it’s out gay men who are intentionally infected the uneasy closeted to make any sort of a case here.
Loud and proud queers do not hate on uneasy queers and it’s interesting that you seem to have shifted your shabby argument.
I’m not sure why you’re dropping in black on black crime, which is a crime of proximity rather than a crime of prejudice or bigotry. Unless you can find that vigilante group of the light and bright.
Seriously.
Does anyone else take a mean little joy in realizing that “objective” observers like Dr. T trip themselves up seriously — and reveal that most of this “objective” defense of self-loathing closeted gays is about the ick of menz kissing — whenever “the gay community” is all about BUTTSECKS! BUTTSECKS HAVING ORGY HOMOS, I TELL YOU! (and of course, they always want to point out the HORRIBLE VIOLENCE done by gay men to other gay menz)
It makes you wonder if it’s just because men have no problem with girls kissing (because they don’t think lesbians are real, or because they like watching girls kiss), or because there aren’t as many Scare Statistics for lesbians.
OK, fucker, now you’re not arguing with even a modicum of good faith.
Get the fuck out of here you jackass.
[Cue “I must have hit a nerve cuz u got angry fag” happy dance by Dr Fucker.]
Except that as per comment 50, when you say “don’t hate and kill” you apparently mean “don’t have sex”.
Which in combination with your protestations that you want people to “be queer and be proud”, makes your apparent overall message seem very strange– It’s okay to be gay, as long as you’re abstinent?
Ah, mcc, but if one is abstinent, and thus not engaging in teh *ick* secks, one by fundie-ville definition is not gay - because in fundie-ville gay is behavior not feeling not emotion. No behavior = no teh gay.
Sabrina Matthews:
“Can counseling make you straight? I don’t know . . . money can make you Republican.”
No, that’s only true if you conflate aesthetic and moral judgments. Contempt is a form of disgust, an aesthetic phenomena. Contempt is also mixed up with a healthy dose of resentment. Yes, commonly enough, people do mix contempt and resentment with their moral judgments, but it is unnecessary.
This is a particular perspective on sexual identity, and it’s one that has only been around for about a hundred years. The writer Michel Foucault did a lot of work on the history of sexuality, and it was his conclusion that homosexuality as an “identity” rather than merely an “act” is only a century or two old.
Even if you disagree with Foucault, on whatever grounds, making sexuality an “identity” rather than a behavior pattern is a precarious theoretical leap.
And even if you insist on making that leap, it would be ridiculous - even resentful - of you to complain when others do not make the same leap.
The analogy only works if one condemns homosexuality as an identity. Substantial numbers of Christians insist they condemn it as an act. You can call them liars, and for a certain number of them you’d even be right. That doesn’t chase away the irriducable remainder that do make moral judgments without contempt.
“Except that as per comment 50, when you say “don’t hate and kill” you apparently mean “don’t have sex”.”
No, have all the sex you want. Just do not kill the catcher while you’re pitching. 2.9M AIDS deaths in 2006 in the US. There isn’t a person in the gay community who doesn’t know how AIDS is transferred from one individual to another. If you stick a needle filled with AIDS infected blood into someone in a club bathroom you can be prosecuted criminally. If you stick your needle full of AIDS infected semen into someone in a gay club bathroom you’re still criminally assaulting them. Your partner signed up for a little fun, not a long, painful death. Now we could devolve into a discussion about why gays men seem to hate eachother and therefor engage in behavior that kills one another - is it self loathing? who’s responsible for the self loathing? But that’s not the point. The point is it’s violence, within a minority group. It’s one type of harsh treatment. There are others.
Like I said above, the vast majority of HIV transmission occurs by accident, due to ignorance or carelessness. It’s not intentional.
Yes, there are gay men who think they’re invincible and practice unsafe sex. Yes, there are other gay men who mean to practice safer sex, but forget when they’re really drunk. There are non-white gay men who think HIV is a white gay man’s disease. THere are gay men who don’t use condoms because they’re in a monogamous relationship and they trust their partner. There is also a very small fraction of gay men who seek out unprotected sex for the adrenaline rush, but they are statistically insignificant compared to the vast majority.
There isn’t a person in the gay community who doesn’t know how AIDS is transferred from one individual to another.
Even if that’s so (which it isn’t, or there wouldn’t be so many new infections to men who don’t think they’re at risk), it’s equally true to say there’s not a person in the straight community who doesn’t know how pregnancy occurs. And yet many, MANY straight couples don’t use contraception because they’re young and they think it can’t happen to them, or because they’re ignorant of the facts of life, or because each assumes the other is “taking care of it,” or because they know about contraception in theory, but when they get really drunk they forget, etc etc etc.
Are vast numbers of straight men deliberately and maliciously impregnating straight women? Are the many, many couples who don’t want to get pregnant but don’t use birth control doing violence to one another? Is that a symptom of self-loathing such that we ought to encourage people to struggle against their heterosexual orientation?
You’re comparing apples and oranges, Dr T, and you damn well know it. I’m done here. If somebody else wants to pander to your intellectual dishonesty and constant shifting of the goalposts (to obscure the fact that every argument you’ve brought up has been knocked down), they can go right ahead, but I’m done.
2.9M AIDS deaths in 2006 in the US.
Do you really have such a poor grasp on reality that you can type that without your brain saying, somewhere - “hey, wait a minute…”?
There are around 300 million people in the US. At a rough estimate, that means around 4 million Americans die each year. And you’re typing something about 2.9 million dying because of AIDS without thinking about how implausible that is?
According to the Wikipedia, there are between 2.4 and 3.3 million deaths worldwide from AIDS. I can understand making a mistake like that - assuming it was possible you were talking about global deaths. But you were talking about “the gay community” and club bathrooms.
The (small) majority of people living with AIDS are women, mostly in Africa and Asia. Most HIV transmission is via heterosexual intercourse. AIDS kills somewhere in the region of 15-20,000 Americans each year.
I can understand making a simple mistake like typing “US” when you meant “worldwide”. I can’t believe the stupidity in talking about the US and throwing out “2.9 million” without recognising the utter implausibility of that statement
You, sir, are an idiot.