As long as being gay is considered less than being straight, gays will be treated worse than

straights. A lot of gay members here are more than a little disappointed over the reaction to the notion that Elena Kagan might be gay. Given the adamant denials of gayness by both the Obama White House and Kagan herself I think it is safe to assume she is indeed straight. Otherwise she is playing with a ton of fire. That said, the reaction to the notion of her being gay, that it is a right wing smear, is truely disturbing. It is 2010, not 1968. Being gay is morally no different at all from being straight. It should be no more a smear of her to say she is gay instead of straight, than to say she is left handed instead of right handed. If you believe it is a smear to call someone gay then you of necessity must believe that being gay is somehow wrong. It really is that simple.

Ironcially, this position actually undermines the privacy the people who you claim to want to bustress the privacy of. Before I came out to my students I took the "I won't answer the question tack" I was 41, single, advised a gay straight alliance and refused to answer the question. As one particularly obnoxious student pointed out if I weren't gay I would take offence at being asked or at least say no right away. Guess what folks, that is your philosophy in a nutshell. Being gay is a smear means I should indeed be offended at being asked. That is the direct distillation. Hence it forces us to either answer or be assumed to be gay which undermines the very privacy you supposedly are speaking up for. There is one solution to this dilemma. Being gay and being striaght must be considered equal. Until they are, we will have these problems.

The argument applies to everyone. As long as women are considered less than men they will be treated worse. It's basic.

I guess to me, being gay is not a big issue (why should it be?) so I wonder why anyone is even interested. We need to get over the idea that being gay is some scintillating, shocking thing. Some people are gay and some are not. I guess there is only hope in the younger generations, who seem more accepting then the baby boomers. Even Gen X is so-so on gay marriage.

in my home state, legislator after legislator asked if I was a lesbian. In their small world that was the worse insult they could come up with and/or the only reason they could think of for why I cared about women's rights.

Every time I said - Thank you for the compliment but no I am not.

The response confused the legislators and allowed the conversation to continue. We need for the conversation to continue.

good one.

That really gets the conversation going in the direction it should be going. Thanks for sharing this :-)

Seriously, if there were a pill I could take, no way. I LOVE being gay.

I once teased my very gay college roommate, telling her his favorite female rockstar was a lesbian. No, it's true, I told him. I'm surprised you didn't know. He was infuriated with me and demanded that it wasn't true. I thought that was an interesting response and called him on it. He agreed and was as puzzled by it as I was.

doing so intending to smear her. WE (Dems.) don't think it's bad nor a smear, but we know THEY think it's both bad and a smear. They use it to try to scare ignorant people into thinking being gay is unnatural, that KAGAN is "unnatural" or unlike "normal" people (in their opinion) and that she'll try to change the law to "force the gay agenda" on everyone.

That is, of course, ridiculous. It's ALSO how the RWers think. And I wish there would be some Dems. in Congress who stood up and said something like, "Why is ok for supposed straight SC justices to be on the Court spreading their ANTI-gay agenda?" Why does it only go one way?

"We're only saying this because RWers think this way!" is one of those memes that give tacit permission for people to nurture their inner bigot while perversely convincing themselves it's in the service of tolerance.

It's like when every Republican who has ever done anything wrong must be secretly gay. The more vile the conservative, the likelier it is they're gay!

When this assumption is challenged for the naked homophobia it is, suddenly it's "Well, I only call them gay because they think it's the worst thing to be!" Or, my favorite, "It's the hypocrisy!" As if that standalone statement is an argument unto itself.

Since the Kagan controversy broke, I have seen dozens upon dozens of posts on DU that call wondering if someone is gay a smear, a sliming, a dragging through the mud, a besmirching of an individual's character.

You can't paint that turd yellow and call it sunshine.

Sorry. No.

"We (Dems)" are full of our own homophobes. Oftentimes, people can hide it. But sometimes, there are those irresistible moments - like Kagan's controversy - where the truth inadvertently falls out of a lot of mouths. A lot of people made it very plain just what they think of homosexuality once you peel past their plastered on Save the Whales bumper-stickerism and reveal their shallow support of equality is little more than cheap sloganeering.

So sorry, you're wrong. Otherwise, please quote where I said being called gay is a smear.

You can't deny that there are RWers in Congress who think being gay is "wrong" and "unnatural," can you? ARE you denying that?

People are responsible for their own words. This "I'm only saying it's a smear because RWers think it is," doesn't cut it. Just like when people call every Republican secretly gay because "they think being gay is bad". That's not a justification. That's bigotry and using the negative stigma attached to homosexuality to score political points.

You cannot deny that plenty of Democrats think there's something wrong with being gay. Care to deny that? Because I could show you literally hundreds of threads with thousands of posts that illustrate it.

I don't know where you're getting all these things that others supposedly say, but I'm not one of 'em. I am not a bigot at ALL. Yes, there may be Dems. out there who think there is something wrong with being gay, but I haven't seen them on this site. If there are, though, I'm not one of 'em.

I'm not saying I don't well understand what you're saying in regards to RW perception of being gay as a bad thing, and the adoption of that language by DUers ostensibly making an innocent, value neutral point.

I'm saying your justification of statements on DU is a load of offensive, insensitive horseshit.

I apologize for any lack of clarity there.

You know what my fantasy is? That one day, on DU, LGBT people will be able to say something and heterosexuals will actually - dare to dream - listen to what we have to say about our own issues instead of constantly explaining to us how we should feel all. the. effing. time.

And, of course, you don't see it. No one ever does! That's the beauty of it all. Literally dozens of posts on the Kagan thing chock full of homophobia. Do you want me to drag in every LGBTer on DU into this thread to point out the endless amounts of offensive, homophobic nonsense we've been watching for the past week? And I know you were in those threads.

"Haven't seen them on this site."

Yeah, that's the problem with privilege right there.

But I'll bet, call it a crazy, crazy hunch, you have no problem whatsoever identifying racism.

homophobes. I'm not. You didn't address my first post on this thread at ALL. You addressed things you wrongfully THINK I said, maybe things you wished I had said. It is not my choice to be straight, but you seem to be blaming me for somehow thinking I'm "privileged." I'm straight and I'm white, but I have family members who are gay and family members who are black. Gay people aren't right all the time just as straight people aren't right all the time. And you are wrong this time thinking I'm defending homophobia in ANY way.

You're willfully not listening. You're talking right past my points. I suspect it's to buttress this bizarre illusion that people on DU haven't said some ridiculously homophobic crap with this Kagan business.

on other threads. You're not listening to ME. Show me some homophobic statements to show me what you're talking about. And you'll find none from me.

She's saying that we all RECOGNIZE that RWers try to use it as a smear because THEY think being gay is a bad thing. They're also stupid enough to think most people agree with them.

"Don't see it on this site."

That's a justification all its own - the justification of the privileged to overlook homophobia because it personally inconveniences the partisan notions of their politics.

"Don't see it."

Of course not!

You're right. But even what you just said will be twisted as homophobic somehow, I bet.

I couldn't let it pass without sticking up for you. I couldn't believe you were attacked in that fashion, for something you never said at all.

:hug:

THANK YOU for having my back. :hug:

you get labelled, and then you get put on ignore. You just gotta develop thick skin, realize some people love to feel the superiority of judging, and ignore the crap lol

pretty easy, politically, at least. Unfortunately, it does matter what RWers think about

- Gun control
- Equal rights for women
- Immigration
- Gay rights
- Universal Healthcare
- Militarism

Right now, with regard to gay rights and the Kagan nomination, the only RWers that concern me are the 41 who are elected US Senators.

I'm curious, Prism, why you think this is somehow different from Healthcare reform or any other issue with which we are facing or have faced since this President was elected? Does it matter what the RWers think? Yes, on every single one of these issues. Do I wish it were not so, yes.

Any why is stating the RW position on Kagan and gay rights somehow more wrong than stating their position on any other issue? What do you think is the advantage of attempting to pretend their position away?

First, you're addressing I'm not even sure what. I'm talking about using sexual orientation as a pejorative. It doesn't matter what RWer think about that. If you are using orientation in a pejorative manner, nothing the RW says or does absolves you from your own behavior.

I am honestly uncertain what kind of language I can use to get it through to privileged heterosexuals that treating homosexuality as something shameful or negative is homophobic behavior.

People keep pretending that this context was entirely within "We're not saying it's bad. RWers are saying it's bad, and we're pointing out what they're thinking." Because that is not the context the comments were made in. There were no such qualifiers floating around.

Oh, sure, now there are such qualifiers, because enough LGBTers got sick and tired of it.

It runs parallel to the "Republicans are gay!" meme that always gurgles to the surface around here. Someone will go "I bet he's a big homo." An LGBTer will object. Then comes "Oh, I'm not saying it's bad! I'm just saying, Republicans think it's bad, and he's a hypocrite probably, and . . ."

You don't get to use homosexuality as a pejorative and then come bouncing back to explain "No no! It's not a pejorative, because we're using it to attack Republicans!" That doesn't neutralize the pejorative nature of the comments.

But hey, I know we're plagued with a lot of Stephen Colberts around here. They're gay-blind - they don't see orientation. And they know this, because there's no such thing as homophobia (unless, of course, there's a Republican to be attacked).

Just about every LGBTer on this message board has been complaining about this stuff, and mysteriously, the same people who are always inclined to be totally unable to see it are totally unable to see it here as well. Someone get the salts, for verily there is too much shock in this.

I'm several things. First, I'm addressing how you responded to Jenmito. You kept making her statements something completely different from what they were. You are clearly angry at the current situation and IMHO justifiably so, but that doesn't make it OK to twist fellow DUers statements into strawmen that you can then beat up. I've seen several other folks doing the same thing.

Then, you keep talking about insensitive statements other DU'ers are making and then you include phrases like these in your response to me:

"Indifferent straight people"

"priviledged heterosexuals"

The fact that you are justifiably pissed off at the discrimination you are experiencing is not an entitlement to engage in this kind of behavior.

Another tactic for the checklist, I suppose. These arguments always fire on all cylinders in that way.

Which part of this statement am I leaving unaddressed?



I have reread the exchanges in their entirety, and it is precisely that original statement that I have been hammering. There is no straw man there.

Let me ask you this.

How many LGBTers must register an objection to the verbiage surrounding Kagan before they may have a point? I'm looking for a number here. Because every LGBTer I've seen post in the associated threads has had a problem with the tone, the statements, and the ideas stated in the quote above. And that is no exaggeration on my part. I literally mean every single LGBTer active in those threads.

At what point do you go "Hrm, there may be a problem here. Surely every single LGBTer in these threads isn't imagining the offense."

The fact that 1) You refuse to even entertain the idea there's a problem, 2) You call the entire argument a straw man when it is as direct a response to the original post as possible and 3) You instead shift to your displeasure with tone are all indications that, yeah, you're indifferent. This isn't the first time, either.

If this were racial verbiage instead of an LGBT issue, I quite honestly don't think we'd be seeing this "Gee willickers, I'm just not seeing it!" Maybe this is cultural. Maybe we're still in a place where too many people simply don't see and don't care about the words coming out of their mouths. Hell, 45 years after the Civil Rights Act, we still have a sizable portion of the population who say the most egregious racially offensive things, and half the time they haven't any idea what just came out of their mouths.

Maybe you should just take an LGBTer's word for it occasionally. Just once. Just for the change of pace. I assure you it's much less effort than constantly swooping in to explain how we should think or feel about our own issues.

Let's start with "You refuse to even entertain the idea there's a problem"

This is a complete invention of yours that is utterly unsupported by my previous comments.

Of course there is a problem. So, not only do I "entertain" the idea, I agree.

And lets dispense with the "your attacking my tone" argument. I'm not attacking tone, I am saying your treatment of people who are discussing this issue with you is plain wrong.

Nor am I attempting to tell you how I think you should think or feel about issues of the LBGT community. I've said several times that I think your anger is justified. Whether someone is angry or not does not justify treating other people badly or unfairly who do not deserve it. It does not justify going off on people and inventing statements or positions.

Once, just once, try actually reading what people are saying and responding to that instead of trying to make up ideas about what they are saying. That is the bottom line.

You read what I did not say. My explaining how what RWers think does not absolve someone from dipping into homophobic sentiment to excoriate them, suddenly became "We should never care what RWers think."

It was so disconnected from my words, it took me a few posts to even understand what your initial response was addressing.

Treatment of people. Yeah, I read hundreds of posts every week on this board dismissing LGBT concerns about our own issues, and you're worried that an off-color comment or two is treatment that cannot go unaddressed.

I have addressed Jenmito's point several times, very clearly, and to the heart of the point she was making. Am I the wrong person to be doing this? Should I ask someone else to explain it?

Because my point isn't new. It's very old on DU. Just as Jen's apologia for homophobic sentiment being employed in the name of criticizing Republicans isn't a new point. It's one of the oldest arguments on DU. There was a time when mods would lock entire threads for it because LGBT people kept flipping their shit over it.

Now, well, there is a much smaller number of LGBTers here (by design), so only a handful of us are around to object to these things. We've retreated back to indifference and tolerance of, really, some of the most offensive viewpoints imaginable.

Jen's point didn't become less offensive. It just became more acceptable here for some bizarre reason. We are now at a place where people are genuinely puzzled that it's considered offensive at all.

Talk about the opposite of progress.

statements! You continue to twist my words (and those who defended me) to make us look like homophobes and I will not spend ANY more time trying to explain how I, someone with NO homophobic bones in my body, feel, to someone who refuses to listen to me and my "privileged, indifferent" straight co-posters. Being gay does not give you the right to distort my words nor the words of any other poster on this thread. Take your holier-than-thou self and go lie about someone else if you must.

How many dozens of times, Jen? How many scores of comments from LGBTers need to be made about our own issues before any of it penetrates? Before you actually stop for just one second and go "I wonder if they have a point. I think I'll listen."

Instead, it is apologies and tolerance and explanations for statements that LGBTers are forced to repeatedly explain to too many straight people on this board.

Your post is wrong. Deeply wrong. It is as wrong now as it was wrong when you posted as the argument and explanation was wrong four and five years ago when people trotted these same bs explanations and arguments for Rove, Coulter, Gannon etc.

LGBTers have been saying precisely what I have been saying for years.

You're sick of me calling you out for it? I'm sick of the culture that allows this stuff, and I am heartily sick of reading endless, interminable, clueless apologias by the privileged who never miss a single opportunity - ever - to explain to LGBT people why they should constantly put up with bigoted sentiments just because they're coming out of the mouths of so-called Democrats.

You're sick of someone attempting to educate your privilege on a message board?

I'm sick of my life being second class because bullshit defenses and willful blindness to the bigotry affecting my community is standard operating procedure within large swaths of the political party that keeps explaining how very much they support equality.

Maybe, just maybe, if you were sick of the right things instead of devoting dozens of posts on every LGBT topic imaginable writing in opposition to whatever it is LGBTers are saying would mean progress for both of us?

For someone all about equality, I don't think I have ever seen you miss an opportunity to let LGBTers know they should just get over their objections.

So Sick. Oh my, the privileged are always the aggrieved party, aren't they just?

They are trying to say that no matter what she says, look at her short hair cut, she's unmarried, no children, and oh my she liked playing softball when she was young.

Being gay should not be a smear.

After 37 years of gay activism, I have returned to my tiny hometown (pop. 200+) to live as off the grid as possible with my partner of 13 years. When either of us are alone, no one ever asks, but we have not figured out how to come out all over again in an area that's mostly racist and has run the local cafe owners who were gay out of town. It's very odd, because I agree emphatically that NOT coming out is being complicit with the notion that being gay is somehow "less okay" that being straight, there is a sort of "live and let live, nobodies askin' so don't tell" attitude here, and coming out might inadvertently create a risk to our physical well being.

Calling it a smear is like calling it an attack. To the right, that's exactly how they see it. If people here say that they are trying to smear her, it probably just means they are attacking her. While we may not feel that attack has an merit, the right and other homophobes in general do. Thus, its characterization as a smear is not far from the truth.

Until we got Governor Tim Pawlenty-of-Bigotry:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x301705

And now he wants to be your president.

Some people (like my partner) will argue that civil unions might be a good "stepping stone" on the path to marriage equality, because they will let our society on the whole "get used to" the idea of two people of the same gender having their union recognized before the law. Those same-sex couples will receive some of the rights and privileges granted in marriage contracts, and when the proverbial sky doesn't fall, public opinion will shift so that same-sex marriage will be more palatable to the masses.

But I believe that promoting civil unions in the short-term may do more harm than good, and they are certainly not the right long-term solution. As long as gay people in our society are not fully allowed to be married under the law (at the federal and state levels), then gay people in our country will always be seen as "less than" straight people. If we were deserving of marriage, then we would be able to be married, and arguing that we are only deserving of civil unions (and not the word "marriage" itself) can only perpetuate our less-than-equal standing. As long as this second-class type of citizenship continues and as long as we are continuously vilified by our political and religious leaders, we will continue to see violent crimes against members of our community, huge disparities in housing and employment, and large amounts of misinformation in the public discourse about us and those we love.

We must counter any arguments that gay people are less than straight people loudly when we encounter them, and we must continue to push for full equality and treatment under the law. There will always be homophobes and our efforts will sadly never be enough, but time is on our side and we certainly still have a lot of work to do.


Edited for spelling.

I tend to over simplify things BUT... it's about as "critical" as being a Dallas Comboys football fan or an Eagles fan...

Who cares? People are people no matter which team they follow. Just because someone chooses to pursue a mate of their own sex shouldn't matter...

It's all about people who can't mind their own business.

But it's a serious issue even today... some people equate homosexuality with pedophilia. Some people get a case of the "willies" around gay people. Why?

It's not logical... not much different than the old movies where you see the woman grab her child and hold her close as the black man walks by...