Does Obama think it's gay people's fault that they're discriminated against?

I'm having trouble interpreting this any other way:

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/NYC4Obama

Do gay people need to be officially coupled, in order not to be discriminated against? Are they allowed to be single, or is "Sex and the City" only for straight people?

What is he saying?

You there! Stop acting so Gay!

You there! Stop acting so gay! A bigot might discriminate against you!

go about their lives. An analogy would be, if you make something officially legal, no one has any valid grounds to take action against you for that activity. If you guarantee someone a right, no one will have just cause to discriminate.

Shouldn't they be protected from discrimination whether or not they enter civil unions?

mean you can extrapolate that as allowing discrimination against individuals.

edited for clarity

What about an over-night couple? Is that couple causing discrimination that can only be remedied by entering into a civil union?

sort: none.

but a gay person might be.

Irony.

Civil unions and "marriage" arent the same. He really needs to get clear and progressive on this.

He's either a 'phobe or a panderer to 'phobes.

Kindly let your pick know, 'cause she's doing better than Obama but she's not exactly out there swinging for equal marriage (and if she's going to run on Bill's record she needs to demounce DOMA and DADT.)

;)

:thumbsup:

you can only have basic cable unlike the rest of your neighbors!

That's the best analogy yet. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

Because you're only partially human and American, though you have all the same responsibilities and pay all the same taxes (if not more).


Welcome to DU! :hi:

compromise with the gay vote not by giving them marraige but by giving them a marriage/hybrid civil union, either way it doesnt really affect me and I think your gonna have to try harder if you want to make people question if obama hates gay people or not.

him in the first place. But some of this statements -- like this one about gay people somehow "causing" discrimination -- and actions (McClurkin) have made me question how supportive he is of the gay community.

But since it "doesn't really affect" you, you obviously don't care.

fan. If take this issue seriously then go to a different candidate. If i were gay and I saw the people obama was associated with and heard some of the rehtoric i would not vote for obama if I was strickly looking at gay rights.

As per the point of gays causing descrimination thats just BS, where did you pick up on that?

you linked this to a blog started by "kim" and other private citizens. this is not any offical blog, manuscript, transcript or any offical campaign notification or statment, this is a private citizens blog. so dont misrepresent what you link.

on his official website. I expected to see something about it in "Civil Rights." Wrong. And it's not discussed in "Families" either.

As a family member, I'm aware that the number of people concerned about these issues is not limited to GLBT people themselves -- they have friends and families, and all of us want to see these issues addressed.

As far as the quote is concerned, I originally got it from another DUer who cited the Gay and Lesbian Task Force. I don't have a link, though.

this is an interesting subject but when people start miquoting candidates or missourcing or fail to source quotes it gets pretty heated and claiming that obama said

Do gay people need to be officially coupled, in order not to be discriminated against?

would be very shoddy punditry

leads to that conclusion. Some of us think so, others do not.

and in the last title you had "It's the second half of his sentence" i don't know if this was done malevolently, unintentionally or accidently or i am misinterpreting just pointing out it sounds like to me that you were claiming that statement was from him.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

(You may need to look in the cached page.)

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:5sVpZEU_-eoJ:www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0409250111sep25,1,7998660.story%3Fcoll%3Dchi-newsopinion-hed+%22right+balance+to+strike%22+Obama&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=24&gl=us

The questions I asked were from me.

n/t

.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:5sVpZEU_-eoJ:www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0409250111sep25,1,7998660.story%3Fcoll%3Dchi-newsopinion-hed+%22right+balance+to+strike%22+Obama&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=24&gl=us

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

I think the guy is a blank slate. No core values.

The only thing I DO know is that he says his religious beliefs prevent him from seeing marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman --even though his church apparently doesn't hold that opinion.

I agree --it's a very odd and also telling statement.

He wants to give me a set of "basic rights"? What are "basic rights"? is that like a training bra version of "civil rights"? Let's see how them queers do with "basic rights" before we can trust them to have the same rights as everyone else?

"What are "basic rights" is that like a training bra version of "civil rights"?

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." -Hillary Clinton

Why is it so difficult to accept that John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have identical platforms on GLBT issues?

Literally, identical. They think DOMA should be repealed. They support civil unions with full marriage rights, but not nationally-mandated full marriage. They support expanding federal hate-crimes and anti-discrimination legislation to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and disease or disability. They support expanded testing and research funding for HIV/AIDS. Although all three of them hold religious beliefs that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman, they would not oppose legislation to allow gay marriage in their own states. All three oppose "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and think GLBT service members should be able to serve openly.

Can anyone point to a single platform difference between any of the three candidates that doesn't involve flip-flopping (for DOMA before she was against it) or pandering (McClurkin) or whatever the hell other accusations--a true policy and platform difference?

Of those 3 candidates --I only believe one of them.

I know --not much to go on, but it's there --and I'm going with it.

But their DEGREE of support may vary. And whether they will actually go to bat for gay rights as President is still to be shown. IMHO, Obama's willingness to use McClurkin in his campaigning puts his commitment in question, as does the statement in the OP.

And see what they have to say?

In 2002, Edwards and Clinton both scored a 100 from the HRC's Congressional scorecard. Kucinich also got 100.
In 2004, Edwards got a 66, Clinton an 88, Kucinich 100.
In 2006, Clinton and Obama both got an 89, Kucinich 100.

Time will tell whether the next Democratic President is actually willing to stick his or her neck out.

It took me a few minutes to come up with any interpretation other than what the words seem to say.

The controversial phrase is "live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination..."

It reads like he's saying that some aspect of current gay ways of living their lives causes discrimination.

But I can find a charitable interpretation that he might be saying that pushing for full marriage, rather than civil union, causes discrimination. That is probably true, sociologically. (But then, the civil rights movement also caused a lot of discrimination in the same way.)

If that's what was meant, it's sort of an unpleasant thing to say, but not nearly as bad as the more straightforward interpretation.

why the need for ambiguity on a matter as crucial as civil rights?

/poorly constructed sentence, but I don't care ROFL

say nothing is the campaign

"Black people should live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination."
What if some low level Clinton staffer had said that to some small newspaper somewhere?

"in a way that doesn't cause discrimination" is a clause modifying "would allow them," not "live their lives."

Holy crap this is literally semantic parsing. You're searching for something to hate with a fine-toothed comb.

It's perfectly clear unless you're actively searching for ways to misinterpret it. The way that you're attempting to interpret it also goes completely against all of his other positions on gay rights and GLBT equality.

You're giving it a reading based on other things you know about him. I'm reading it as it stands, warts and all. Hopefully it was just a poor choice of words.

of an unambiguous quote from an article from HUFFINGTON POST are here treating this interpretation with the UTMOST of civility. The contrast is glaring.

The key word in the interpretation is "cause". This was probably a poor choice of language because the word cause CAN be read to suggest that the gays' way of life somehow IMPELS others to discriminate against them. But, as in legal interpretation, you look at context to see if this interpretation makes sense or if it contradicts other statements. Here the interpretation of the OPer CLEARLY contradicts the repeatedly stated position of Obama on gay rights, one that trolls who have been going after him on the McClurkin affaire (as if Obama was responsible for what McClurkin says or thinks, or as if Obama agreed with or failed to distinguish his own position from McClurkin's, which he CLEARLY has) can't wait to jump on.

Now what DOES the word "cause" mean in this context? Well, cause can mean many things, indeed so many things that he probably shouldn't have used this word. But the notion that gays, being denied basic rights, eg, like access to one another in hospitals or to hospital records and such, this "causes" them to be turned away even when someone's straight partner would normally have access. Thus the provision of rights allows gays to live their lives in a way that ... etc.

There are myriad other examples of discrimination being CAUSED by the circumstances that arise out of the lack of rights. BECAUSE gays don't have the same inheritance rights or tax form rights etc etc as straights, this CAUSES them to be subjected to discrimination. Obama could have expressed himself better, and someone might do well to put this quote to him and ask for his clarification, but there is every reason to believe that (a) this interpretation, consistent with Obama's overall position, is the right one and (b) there is NOTHING indicating that Obama is trying to or stands to gain by "gay" baiting, unlike the race-baiting strategy that has emerged as CENTRAL TO the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Interpretation of what people say requires a degree of common sense, and trolls, like I say, are all about agenda and zero about truth.

Elsewhere in this thread I note the incredible WHINING about a perfectly reasonably interpreted quote from a column published yesterday at Huffington Post.

I notice that there are ENORMOUS threads for anti-Obama trolling, but anything accurate but edgy FOR Obama gets pilloried.....

Fortunately there ARE a lot of Obama supporters on DU, and I think that number is apt to increase ....

(Here's the thread about Huffpo to which I refer):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4043443&mesg_id=4043443

"It's perfectly clear unless you're actively searching for ways to misinterpret it. The way that you're attempting to interpret it also goes completely against all of his other positions on AFRICAN AMERICAN rights and equality."

Once again, I say, actions speak louder than words. Donnie McClurkin's use in the Gospel Tour was an ACTION on Obama's part.

And I believe I've defended her against it here on DU. The Obama supporters who do it are just as wrong.

Oh well. Yes, the notion of Occam's razor is that the simpler explanation is probably better. The point is that one should first look to an interpretation consistent with one's overall position (like Obama's overall position on gay rights) rather than trying to find in it invidious discrimination.

The more general point about interpretation I stand by -- of his statement being reasonably interpreted in consonance with his overall position on the issue

:shrug:

it seems to me that he's saying making sure they have rights will go a long way towards ensuring them of protection from discrimination.

not sure why you read it the way you did.

also note: I'm not excausing obama for other things regarding the gay community, but this statement seems to be a positive, not a negative. IMHO

Human beings are born with the same rights, worldwide. All a government has control of, is whether these rights are protected, or violated.

(in my humble opinion, that is)

I support a candidate who I believe is firmly on the side of equal protection of all human rights, not only for US citizens but for all members of the human race. And, I won't be backing away from that support. My hope is that all the Democratic candidates will recognize the importance of protecting equal rights for all human beings, among these the right to choose their own life companions and the right to conduct their private lives without discrimination or harrassment.

if your relationship don't have "a set of basic rights", you will be discriminated against. He doesn't sound very sure though..he said.. "I think"... and a "a set of basic rights" - which is vague.

To think he is trying to say it's their fault that they are discriminated against is an utterly dishonest argument.

I'm trying to understand what he said, I'm not arguing anything.

And he said that basic rights -- civil unions -- would "allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination."

It appears to me that he's saying that gay people (in the absence of a sanctioned civil union) are living their lives in a way that causes discrimination.

You haven't explained how he's saying anything different.

If you are really serious and not trying to bash Obama based on a half-truth or lie, then you hopefully are intelligent enough to see how Obama is for equal rights for the LGBT community and others.

His solution starts with allowing and making it federally recognized that civil unions and domestic partnerships between same-sex relationships are enacted. Getting gay marriage recognized and made federally legal is the obvious next step.

You have to be dishonest about Obama if you think he has implied that the gay lifestyle as a choice brings the conclusion that it's their fault they are discriminated against. To imply he thinks that is nothing more than a lie.

you keep repeating this - but never link to it. Its not the truth - Obama is not for marriage equality and has stated it over and over. You are not helping Obama by making up what you think he believes.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination."

So, gay people need civil unions so they'll "live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination." Right now, apparently, without civil unions, they're living their lives in a way that DOES cause discrimination.

Not according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

www.thetaskforce.com

PDF file here: http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/final_candidates_positions.pdf


“And I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
“I am somebody who has not embraced gay marriage. I’ve said that it’s not something that I think the society is necessarily ready for. And it strikes me that in a lot of ways for a lot of people; it may intrude in how they understand marriage.”

I'm so confuzzled :silly:

he has come out against equal marriage numberous times.

instead of the reality of the situation: gays are currently DENIED what should be their rightful equal status by straight people.

It's an interesting glimpse into how he perceives gays and lesbians.

rights? He is the gay rights Santa now? They aren't already entitled to the rights the rest of Americans have? They have to be 'given' to them?

we = straight
them = gay

in his website in his section on civil rights, he doesn't say a word about GLBT rights. Or in his section on families.

But in another discussion on Native American rights, I was pointed back to his website, and noticed that beside the menu for "Issues" there is also a menu for "People" which is where that information is included.

There's something off about that? Seems to be accurate pronoun usage to me. Though he doesn't actually use the word "we" in this quote.

I am GLBT, but when talking about GLBT issues, I frequently use the pronoun "them" just to make it clear who I'm referring to.

if you're part of "us?"

When one wants to make a point of being included in the group one is talking about, the pronoun "we" is better. "They" is better when making an objective comment about a group without trying to explicitly point out one's inclusion in that group.

If I wrote... "Americans are largely united in their support for universal health care"... would you think anything of it? Despite the fact that I am, in fact, an American who supports universal health care?

That's as contrasted to, say... "Americans are largely united in our support for universal health care." In a statement of objective analysis, that "our" feels off, because I'm going out of my way to point out that I'm a member of the group. It's not well-suited when the author should be invisible to allow the message or analysis more space.

And welcome to DU. :hi:

sorry, this pisses me off.

but since I can't I'll do so in spirit.:hi:

:kick: and recommend

:thumbsup:

just like bush.:eyes:

Haven't you seen what's going on out there? Sex is a fearful, exploitive thing. It hasn't been "fun" since the 1960's. People usually kill each other over sexual matters. You've been letting The Bachelor delude you again.

On edit: Wake up and smell the burning bodies from Mrs. Lovett's pie factory, already. There are more important things in the world than sex or who's having it or how often.

Obama: "Marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Thanks Obama, I hadn't heard that enough from Rick Santorum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlY9HFRNUHs

Is the concept of a religious politician not foisting his religious beliefs on the people he's elected to lead so alien that we refuse to believe it's possible?

Yes. Obama personally believes marriage to be defined as holy matrimony, a sacred bond between a man and a woman. But time and time again, he has resisted every attempt to force that definition upon anyone else. He opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, he opposed the Constitutional amendment defining marriage... He has among the best records for protecting GLBT rights even among Senate Democrats.

Why is it so difficult to comprehend that he can follow a political philosophy that includes keeping his beliefs separate from his governance?

OBAMA is the one who brought them up during a debate about 5 times, even when it didn't even really fit with the question he was being asked, to make sure the "right" people knew he was no threat to them.

And I don't want a president who couches his opposition to my rights in such religious code. NONE of the other candidates talk about this issue the way he has regardless of their actual nuts-and-bolts position on the subject. The president sets the agenda and the tone for the country, and I don't want a president who talks about "sanctity" of marriage at every turn.

"Why is it so difficult to comprehend that he can follow a political philosophy that includes keeping his beliefs separate from his governance?"

Why don't you ask Obama, not me. He's the one who brought it up.

NONE of the other candidates? I have to quote it a third time in this thread?

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." -Hillary Clinton

"Cheney appeared to stiffen at Edwards’ remarks during the debate, which was by far the most public forum in which the vice president’s lesbian daughter had been discussed. But it was Edwards who repeatedly indicated that he and his running mate, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, 'believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.'"

DK and Gravel are the only two who support full marriage rights. Edwards, Clinton, and Obama all support civil unions but not full marriage, all three of them admittedly for religious reasons.

Fact is, NO ONE ELSE uses such language designed specifically to appeal to religious voters who work against our rights. I don't see any of the other candidates talking about "believing in things unseen," or a "king who took us to the mountaintop," or "reconciling" faith and politics. I don't see any of the other candidates using an anti-gay bigot as a headliner for a gospel tour and then telling us we should be less divisive when we object.

Sorry. We GLBTs have been doing this for enough election cycles to be able to recognize a false friend. We don't need any "interpretive" help from you.

I'm rather insulted by your assumption that support for Obama automatically means I'm straight. I'm a bisexual man, for the record. I'm also an atheist, so Obama's religious rhetoric does nothing for me.

That hard to believe someone could stand for him on issues and record?

What do you want me to tell you?

I just find the idea that "no queer people should support Obama" to be just as condescending as "all women should vote for Clinton" or "all poor people should vote for Edwards." You don't think he supports gay rights, fine, I probably can't convince you otherwise, but I'm not the one suggesting you're gullible or stupid for holding those beliefs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8463741/

United Church of Christ endorses gay marriage
Approves resolution for same-sex unions, opposes gender-specific definition

ATLANTA - The United Church of Christ’s rule-making body voted overwhelmingly Monday to approve a resolution that endorses same-sex marriage, making it the largest Christian denomination to do so.

The vote is not binding on individual churches, but could cause some churches to leave the fold.

Roughly 80 percent of the members of the church’s General Synod voted to approve the resolution. They debated for about an hour before voting.

He has publicly pointed out that his church endorses same-sex marriage, as quoted downthread.

beliefs clearly seem to have influenced his political positions.

ww.thetaskforce.com

PDF file here: http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/f...


“And I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
“I am somebody who has not embraced gay marriage. I’ve said that it’s not something that I think the society is necessarily ready for. And it strikes me that in a lot of ways for a lot of people; it may intrude in how they understand marriage.”

However, he supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and voted against the proposed Constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. He is quite open about his own definition of marriage, sure, but he's been completely consistent in resisting attempts to force that definition on anyone else.

At the same time, he's resistant to Federally mandating another definition of marriage that includes gay couples.

I disagree with him on this issue, because it's not a definitional matter, but I can see where he's coming from. And Federally-protected civil unions would be a step in the right direction. That is, in any case, what all the other candidates support.

In my ideal world, we'd see civil unions for all and civil marriage for none, and leave marriage up to religious institutions... I still hope.

It would simplify everything.

I mean Civil Unions--for gay/lesbian couples.


That's where he's legislating his religious belief that Marriage is between a woman and a man into law.

But you realize that Clinton supports civil unions but not marriage rights for GLBT couples as well, right? And for the same reason?

I think you're interpreting as:

"(Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship) and (live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination)," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

When in fact it was:

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to (experience their relationship and live their lives) in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

Giving them a set of basic rights via secular civil unions would allow them to do these things in a way that is not discriminatory as compared to straight, married couples.

I disagree with him, and think there should be full marriage rights, but his position is the same as the three top-tier candidates. Kucinich and Gravel are the only two who support full marriage rights.

these are not things to be benevolently bestowed on people. These are things that people are entitled to and a candidate should be fighting for.

Obama has always maintained that these are civil rights that cannot be denied, and has always fought for them.

When people say Lincoln "freed the slaves" by signing the Emancipation Proclamation, they're not suggesting that it was the ever-benevolent white guy granting rights that never previously existed. It's just shorthand for "recognized that their due freedom was being denied, and made it illegal to deny it."

if this was one isolated incident, I would agree with you. But, what he clearly is doing is reaching out to more conservative evangelicals and trying to frame it in language that will work for them. My problem with this is that I think it is naive. The rightwing evangelical community, both black and white, will never accept marriage equality, so the best way to proceed is to talk about how it is unequivocally the morally right position to take, as Coretta Scott King did, not talk about it in the language of compromise. The language of compromise, when dealing with an issue of human rights, demeans both the community it seeks to free and the candidate who seeks to pander to the opponents of freedom.

Btw, I appreciate you can have this disagreement civilly and intellectually without it descending into DU ad hom. By your posts, I know that you understand that these are important discussions for all of us to have as we head to the convention, and that the bottom line is that most of us are basically on the same page.

Your wording was better and I hope that's what he meant.

"is discriminatory" would have been a better choice than "cause discrimination."

everytime I hear his name lately. Well, prayerful isn't exactly the right word.

A deeply "historic, religious and moral" issue.

You can argue with semantics and spin it any way you want, that's what he wants.


http://www.2008electionprocon.org/pdf/Dem20070809.pdf

(civil rights and family) and wasn't able to find anything.

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

I was a bit stumped at first, too, because it's listed under "People" rather than under "Issues."

having sex they wouldn't make people discriminate against them.

Jeesh.... what the hell is a "set of basic rights"? How about equal rights? maybe Obama thinks gay people are promiscuous and "gay unions" would change that (as if straight people aren't totally promiscuous in and out of marriage). I really do not get his point either.

In this case is referring to civil unions with all the rights and privileges of marriage.

He supports and always has supported full and equal civil rights for the LGBT community, he simply opposes the use of the word "marriage." That's it. That's the big huge deal. And he also supports repealing DOMA so that states can, if they choose, use the word "marriage," however he personally feels about it.

As always... Unless you're planning to vote for DK or Mike Gravel, criticizing Obama on this area of policy is hypocritical, since he, Clinton, and Edwards have identical platforms on this issue.

There is no such thing. Unless its called the same thing it will never have the same legal and social standing.

My wife and I would prefer it, since there is a religious institution of marriage we want no part of. Give people the same rights under law, and let them decide what to call it.

would put their money where their mouth is.

If you truly believe that civil unions are better than marriage, then get divorced from your wife and move to a state where there are civil unions. Otherwise, focus on making the civil institution of marriage available to all.

And I and several friends of mine have committed not to get married until those legal benefits are extended to all members of our society. Granted, I'm single, so that's not a very big sacrifice on my part.

It would be ridiculous for me to simply sequester myself in a state that does have civil unions. That's as ridiculous a statement as saying "well if you're gay and want to get married, just move to Massachusetts." I want these rights extended to everyone in America, not just to me personally.

I don't personally care about the wording of marriage versus civil union, what I care about is that gay couples and straight couples have equal legal rights and responsibilities, and that every state is required to give "full faith and credit" to every other state's unions. This can be achieved plenty of ways...

a) Expand full marriage rights to gay couples. This is the simplest, but it will be an uphill battle in Congress and the electorate because people are afraid of marriage being "redefined" for them.
b) Give civil unions to everyone and marriage to no one. My ideal. More complicated because it involves two separate and probably controversial moves--granting Federally-protected civil union status to everyone, and then dismantling the institution of civil marriage. The latter of the two might even be more difficult and controversial than solution A.
c) Grant Federally-protected civil unions to gay couples, keep the institution of civil marriage, mandate that the civil unions have the same rights and responsibilities and inter-state transferability as marriage. Definitely the lowest-hanging fruit with the best chance of actually passing. Legally, it's equivalent to A and B, but philosophically, it's still "separate but equal."

C isn't the ideal solution, but it's still not a bad solution.

A) Marriage is a legal term embedded in statute and decisional law that originates in English common law, before the creation of the U.S.

B) Married couples are not going to want to downgrade their marriages, and let's face it, that's how they'll see it. Civil unions were conceived in the U.S. as something less than marriage to give to GLBTs. Ultimately, arguments based on the religious attachments to the word "marriage" are bunk; what it boils down to is discrimination, i.e., maintaining a distinction between gays and straights so that relationships among the former are not put on a par with those of the latter. Not only would the replacement of civil marriage with civil unions never happen, the effort to do so would simply give more ammunition to those who claim it was our (GLBTs') intention to "destroy" marriage all along.

What you're proposing is a far more uphill (and unnecessary) battle than simply making marriage available to those who are currently denied it. You're worried about the backlash to "redefining" marriage, yet you propose to abolish it altogether!

I said so, in fact. Out of all three things I mentioned, my proposal would probably generate the most hostility and have the least chance of success. That's why I call it an ideal. :P

And marriage has existed since long before English common law. What's the point? It's a big mess of social, religious, legal, and financial significance; I want our society to recognize that a secular government has no business in any part of that except the legal and financial. If we had separate concepts of civil partnership and religious marriage, instead of conflating the two, this argument could have been over long before it started, without all this "definition of marriage" wrangling...

I do recognize it's a pipe dream, though, since people are too invested in civil marriage after centuries of tradition. It will take generations to change if it ever does get changed.

The plans that the candidates are coming out with would provide Federally-protected civil union status, meaning every state would have to recognize it. It's not like the civil unions of Vermont which are completely void in any other state.

As for social standing, the government should not be providing that to begin with.

to a homophobic preacher Master of Ceremonies.

I'm on acid right now and I didn't get that from his statement.

the incredible WHINING about a perfectly reasonably interpreted quote from a column published yesterday at Huffington Post.

I notice that there are ENORMOUS threads for anti-Obama trolling, but anything accurate but edgy FOR Obama gets pilloried.....

Fortunately there ARE a lot of Obama supporters on DU, and I think that number is apt to increase ....

(Here's the thread about Huffpo to which I refer):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4043443&mesg_id=4043443

And you may understand the difference in reaction between the two.

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

Fuck off.

But what I said is the truth. Medically and scientifically there is no disputing that.

And by that I am not trying to justify discrimination, just stating what is and what will be. Sometimes it is better to chop away at a problem piece by piece, rather than trying to get the whole enchilada.

other than your homophobia.

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

The reason we are having this discussion is bigots like you.

They miss you at home. Please contact: PO Box 9771, Fresno, CA 93794

the AMA stated in the early 70s that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Now how is it abnormal medically? How is it scientifically abnormal? There are homosexual behaviors in most other animals besides human kind.What you just posted is bizarre to say the least.

Are left-handed people abnormal? Are blue-eyed people abnormal?

Damn.

Sexual attaction amongst the same gender of any species is considered an abnormality. That is scientific fact.

I do not want to get into an argument trying to label people. And I guess I should not have made the first comment, because people are unwilling to understand fact what goes along with that.

GLBT Americans are great people and our society is greatly enriched by their contributions. There is no denying that. We are a much better society because of what is brought to the table.

All I am saying is that expecting a normalcy in this society is not going to happen. The issue of discrimination goes far beyond what the law states or does not state. Ask any African-American or any person with a disability.

Do you have a study you can point us to (other than one by Paul Cameron)? A peer-reviewed article? Someone from the APA willing to vouch that homosexuality is abnormal? Oh, right, you're just talking out of your bigoted ass while using words like "scientific" and "medical" to cover it.

After I get back from dinner, I will be glad to. During that time you might want to research on your own papers that suggest homosexuality is a normal behavior. You may see examples in different species, but it is never considered a normal behavior.

Recently, in lab situations scientists have been able to turn on and off homosexual tendencies in animals. It is a mental miscue.

it doesn't mean that a naturally occurring phenomenon is a "mental miscue" because it can be manipulated in a lab. In fact, it shows exactly the opposite--that the condition is an outgrowth of biological functioning.

"Less prevalent" does not equal "abnormal" except for those who wish to use science to back a certain agenda.

At least in fruit flies

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23001541-29277,00.html

Hetereosexuality must be a mental miscue.

:thumbsup:

The argument isn't about homosexuality. It's about "normal" - normalcy, normality and/or questions about "what is natural?".

Please don't try to suggest otherwise. The only abnormal thing about homosexuality is the contempt which the dominant culture reserves for it. Pathologize that, readers of DU.

I alerted

The mods must be really busy today

:hi:

It is possible to "turn on and off homosexual tendencies" -- as well as heterosexual tendencies. I'm sure you have personally turned off all sexual tendencies in others, countless times, by your insufferable personality alone.

Homosexuality in humans has always been a part of the species. Something that has always existed is normal. We didn't just magically appear in the 1960s, honey.

"GLBT Americans are great people and our society is greatly enriched by their contributions."

What's next in your repertoire? "Stepin Fetchit was a credit to his race"?

Can I please wipe it from my memory that I actually read your post? :eyes:

:wtf:

Damn, this primary season is really bringing out the 'phobes. You're not making your candidate look good, at all...

But I couldn't think of any, so I won't bother, and will go ahead and try to forget I read your comment too. As well as forget seeing an Obama banner therein.

I mean, are you really for real?

You aren't even worth citing facts on you're so pathetic.

I think his political advisers have suggested that he not be too up front on this issue, else the Repugs will demagogue it and turn this into a general election issue. That's the same reason why no major Democratic candidate supports full fledged gay marriage.

But if Obama gets in office look for him to be a great supporter of gay rights.

He'll do just what he has been doing. He wouldn't want to mess up his chances for re-election, after all. Praise Jebus and screw the GLBTs.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

:shrug:

Put parentheses here and here:

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them (to experience their relationship and live their lives) in a way that doesn't cause discrimination."

Now ellipsis that out.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them ... in a way that doesn't cause discrimination."

There could have been some better word choices, sure. "Expanding marriage-equivalent rights to GLBT citizens would allow them in a way that isn't discriminatory to live their lives and experience their relationship" for instance. I'm assuming this comment was off the cuff.

Beyond homophobic

Because, as we all know, Obama is known for his very anti-gay record.:sarcasm:

Coming from somebody supporting a proDOMA, proDontAskDontTell candidate, yep, this is as fun as it is. I understand how some people can think Clinton is a racist. They follow the same low standard you do.

but Iately I've been on the fence.

I will, however, support whoever turns out to the the eventual nominee.

WEAKKKKK

think it doesn't mean what it says on its face, and they base their conclusion on other things that Obama has said.

That's fine, but I don't think his overall record is that clear. Hiring McClurkin to fundraise for him, and then refusing to apologize for that, isn't consistent with Obama's paper positions of supporting gay rights.

that makes sense. For weeks now, people who think Senator Obama is out of touch with GLBT Americans have been accused of making up quotes that put him in a bad light.

He actually said this. So now we're just supposed to be hypnotized like the Obamanauts and believe he meant the complete opposite of what he actually said?

I have no doubt that Senator Obama at least halfway believes that GLBT Americans deserve some measure of equality. What I don't get is the meaning behind this statement if it isn't to be interpreted literally.

/edited to correct my grammar issues

That's what your girlfriend calls you.

"hyuh hyuh ah fucked yer girlfriend hyuck" is the best you can come up with? never did make it to the cleaners did you?

Weak sauce.

Well thanks, ever so. :eyes:

You should be grateful. Now take your treats like a good little puppy.