Daily Kos

One Queer's take on bigotry and brand names

Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:15:18 PM PDT

Shame on dKos.

The number one recomended diary about the Obama-McClurkin 69ing (a mutual deep throating clusterfuck) is by pastor Dan?

No folks, it's time Queer voices were heard about this, not religious apologists. (Then again, you may not find too many of us Queers commenting around here 'cause one look at the rec list tells us everything we need to know.)

It is long past time to stop giving these assholes a fucking pass.

Obama was warned five ways to Sunday what was going to happen, and he went forward anyway.

Worse, Obama in his best Janus imitation, first issued a statement a couple of days back trying to say how much he strongly disagrees with McClurkin's views, then at the concert itself, Obama did a taped introduction as reported in the CNN piece:

Obama, while not present, appeared on a videotaped message to the crowd, saying, "The artists you’re going to hear from are some of the best in the world, and favorites of Michelle and myself."

(Hint folks, no qualifiers in that.)

To try to objection handle the situation preemptively, Obama tried to appease Queers by adding to the program, what else, a white gay preacher. (Nothing like sticking a white gay preacher on the program to tell a bunch of blacks about homophobia in South Carolina. D'oh!)

But predictably, even with his addition to the program, he said nothing of consequence and most of the audience wasn't even in place when he spoke.

So the "embrace the change" concert went forward, with the final half hour basically a non-stop McClurk-off (hint rhymes with jerk-off) in which the audience (who applauded right along) were treated to McClurkin's 'personal testimony' of how he claims god can and will obliterate Queerness.

Naturally, there was a "vigil" all of about 15-20 "gays and lesbians" outside who the NYT piece reports "stood quietly across the street." Those crowding into the auditorium had no problem walking right past their real live bodies. They had no qualms stepping over us.

As if this were not enough? Obama is headed to San Francisco Nov. 14th, for a "Countdown to Change" event, where no doubt he'll be met with open arms, not rotten tomatoes.

No, this is not a time for to be nice.

It is not a time to 'open new dialogs,' it is a time to call bullshit. Bullshit on providing a national stage and 1/2 long church infomerical for anti-Queer biogtry.

Time to call bullshit on all the other democrats who let this shit go by without screaming bloody fucking murder. This is their party. This is the face of their party. They ALL fucking own it. (Me, after this, I have no clue where I stand in relation to such, other than completely revolted.)

And as for dKos?

Well, if you want to sit and rec christian apologists, who are upset, ney outraged (yawn) that the very thing they are a part of continues to pull this shit over our real live selves, then maybe the time is coming to begin asking the real question- if they're all so fucking upset, whining to the wind 'but they're not doing it right!' does all their blather even matter? It doesn't to me.

I honestly don't don't give a rats ass what the excuse is. I'm just sick of people listening to the apologists rather than the people who are directly affected. It's easy to hit 'rec' on a christian diarist saying other christians "aren't doing it right" nothing radical ("to the root") there. At the end of the day it certainly makes people feel they did something- when they didn't.

Christians can't by definition clean up their own act.

Think you really care about what just happened, then shut up and listen to those who really are affected, not people oh so hurt that their brand name ("christian") just got a black eye.

And as for "Queer," Dan, you haven't earned the right to use that word.

Tags: Barack Obama, Donnie McClurkin, democrats, democratic party, Queer (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 155 comments

  •  homework (11+ / 0-)

    Go dig for some Queer voices on all this. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

    barf.org : a resource for all who work to monitor and counter the Biblical America movement.

    by stormcoming on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:18:13 PM PDT

    •  Whose Responsibility is It to "Dig?" (7+ / 0-)

      for those Queer voices? Or is it a Queer responsibility to step up to the plate exactly like you did?

      And, if you feel you can obtain your rights (which I think most Kossacks completely agree are due you) all by your selves, well, go ahead and alienate potential allies because you don't like the way they presented themselves.

      You're pissed. We get it. Obama's star is falling -- that's the price he pays for being a jerk.

      Post a diary of strategies to obtain and secure your rights. If it's any good, I'll rec it. If it's crap, i won't. It's that simple.

      "You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -Abbie Hoffman

      by Uthaclena on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:56:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Speak for yourself (6+ / 0-)

      fellow queer.  You don't seem to be very familiar with DKos or PastorDan based on this diary.  You do your homework.

      Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

      by bythesea on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 12:20:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not concerned (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      dadanation, Boston Boomer, homogenius

      A lot of your fellow queers, myself included, have been participating actively in the discussion on McClurkin without getting diaries on the rec list. Including on the front page diary. I don't think it's accurate to conclude that PastorDan is driving the discussion of this issue.

  •  The worst part for me... (14+ / 0-)

    ...is the notion of self proclaimed "christians" arguing about whether a non-existent, supernatural entity called "god" either likes or doesn't like people who are homosexual.

    "Christians" cherry pick passages to support their side of the argument from a book of fiction and fable that shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.

  •  Actually (24+ / 0-)

    Our diaries have been getting recommended as well. My diary from last week was well-received and there have been others in the past week as well.

    Furthermore, Pastor Dan is an ally. Why attack him?

    "I do not equate my oppression with the oppression of blacks and Latinos. You can't. It is not the same struggle, but it is one struggle." Bob Kohler

    by dedmonds on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:26:37 PM PDT

  •  There aren't enough of us here (14+ / 0-)

    and we are being called racists for standing up for black lesbian and gay kids. HarveyMilk went over the line with a clearly racist diary to illustrate our frustration. And the calls are to ban him. Seems we are wanted only for our work and money, nothing more. We work for Progressives and Liberals who than praise homophobes as expressions of 'culture'. Sick of it.

  •  Obama's on the wrong side of history (9+ / 0-)

    My personal take is that the Obama campaign is dead in the water after this. For myself, I've never been quite sure what he stands for, and I've had doubts about him as a right-wing appeaser. This has to be a big disillusioning moment for the many people who had the audacity to hope for some kind of change.

    But I think it's insignificant as far as civil rights for gay people are concerned. We've come a long way as a movement since 92-93, which, disappointing as it was, was also a step forward.

    Obama has just shown himself to be a bungler by trying to be so retrograde at this time.

  •  uh, what's this McGlurkin thing all about? (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Fabian

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:40:18 PM PDT

    •  Obama hooked up with McClurkin (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, Cartoon Peril, jarhead5536

      who is a popular preacher and singer. (Never heard of him, but pop music left me long ago.)  McClurkin is supposedly EX-gay, although one anonymous source says that McClurkin is about as ex-gay as Craig, Haggard and Foley.  That's not the problem.  The problem is that McClurkin uses gay-bashing language in his preaching.  

      Now the black community, unfortunately, is far less tolerant of LGBT folks than the white community.  So Obama's pick of McClurkin was not a brilliant move.  Obama sticking with McClurkin after people protested wasn't good.  Then McClurkin did exactly what he's known for - attacked gays in an Obama event.

      The perception is that Obama allied himself with McClurkin to pick up the Southern black vote at the expense of LGBT.  (your mileage may vary)

      Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

      by Fabian on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 05:21:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  dancing around that shouldn't be too hard for the (0+ / 0-)

        standard weaselly politician.

        You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

        by Cartoon Peril on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 06:43:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  the data are not very supportive of this notion (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        moiv, Fabian

        Now the black community, unfortunately, is far less tolerant of LGBT folks than the white community.

        actually, the data remain somewhat contradictory:

        The initial results of our analyses suggested that African American college students may have slightly more negative affective and attitudinal reactions to LGBs than White students. However, additional analyses clarified those results by statistically controlling for three variables on which the ethnic groups had differed significantly. Specifically, after frequency of church attendance, religious commitment, and SES were taken into consideration, any previously suggested ethnic differences in homophobia and homonegativity vanished. These results are consistent with previous studies (e.g., Glen & Weaver, 1979; Herek & Capitanio, 1995; Irwin & Thompson, 1977; Marsiglio, 1993) in which no appreciable difference in negative reactions to LGBs had been found between African Americans and Whites.

        That notwithstanding, other empirical and anecdotal evidence suggests that anti-gay sentiments may be more prevalent among African Americans than among Whites. One of the primary reasons for conducting the current study was to explore how religiosity and enculturation toward the African American culture may underlie some, if not much, of African Americans' negative reactions to LGBs. With that goal in mind, we explored if sociodemographic and religiosity variables would significantly predict homophobia and homonegativity. For both African Americans and Whites, gender and religious commitment predicted homophobia. For African Americans, gender and frequency of church attendance predicted homonegativity (for Whites, gender and religious commitment predicted homonegativity). In essence, it was African Americans' commitment to their religious faith that correlated most with how they respond affectively toward LGBs: the more they attended church, the more negative their attitudes were toward LGBs. Knowing the fallacy of assuming causality with correlational data, we can only speculate that, for African Americans, repeated church attendance possibly reinforces negative attitudes about LGBs.

        a tricky issue indeed, where some data suggest racial/ethnic communities across the board are more homophobic than their white counterparts, but at the same time other data which suggest that a contextual examination of the data contradict the prevailing wisdom.

        another fascinating conundrum:

        The findings were somewhat paradoxical. Even after controlling for frequency of church attendance, education, age, and gender, he found that African Americans were more homophobic than Whites. More specifically, Lewis found that African Americans were 11 percentage points more likely than Whites to condemn homosexual relations as "always wrong" and 14 percentage points more likely than Whites to see LGBs as deserving of "God's punishment" in the form of AIDS. Moreover, African Americans indicated that they would support removing pro-gay books from their public library by 6 percentage points more than Whites and would be less willing to allow an openly gay person make a speech in their community by 4 percentage points more than Whites. Ironically, however, African Americans were more supportive than Whites of gay civil liberties and significantly more opposed to antigay employment discrimination than Whites. Lewis commented that "Blacks appear to be more likely than Whites to both see homosexuality as wrong and to favor gay rights laws" (p. 66), and he interpreted those findings in light of African Americans' historically strong opposition to discrimination in political and economic spheres. Given that religiosity, education, age, and gender did not meaningfully eliminate African Americans' relatively high levels of homophobia, Lewis concluded that additional research is needed to understand the variables at the heart of African Americans' homophobia, particularly as a means for developing more effective, culture-specific campaigns against homophobia.

        i added the emphasis for emphasis.

        both of these blockquotes were taken from this research paper published in 2005.  well worth the read too.

        _________________________________

        "Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde."

        -9.75 (economic), -7.18 (social)

        by dadanation on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:38:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Correction - religious blacks (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          dadanation, stormcoming

          are more hostile to gays than their white counterparts.

          I feel a little better that the whole black community isn't more homophobic.  But it does make the point that McClurkin is not an outlier, indeed he is typical.

          In essence, it was African Americans' commitment to their religious faith that correlated most with how they respond affectively toward LGBs: the more they attended church, the more negative their attitudes were toward LGBs. Knowing the fallacy of assuming causality with correlational data, we can only speculate that, for African Americans, repeated church attendance possibly reinforces negative attitudes about LGBs.

          Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

          by Fabian on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 12:51:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  that fact (re: religious blacks (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Fabian, stormcoming

            is so confounding and so perplexing and so distinct.

            mcLurkin is at home with his kind in his homophobia.

            i a reminded of the fate of the late great disco diva sylvester james, who was eventually booted from his church as a young man because he was gay.

            _________________________________

            "Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde."

            -9.75 (economic), -7.18 (social)

            by dadanation on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:03:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It says something about (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              dadanation

              the typical black church.  Fairly homogeneous compared to white churches - which are all over the map.

              Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

              by Fabian on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 02:38:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  but then there are preachers like rcecil williams (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                PaintyKat, Fabian

                and bishop dr. rev. yvete flunder (the highest ranking out, black lesbian in the christian church world)who stand in stark contrast to the homogeneous mcLurkin types.

                _________________________________

                "Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde."

                -9.75 (economic), -7.18 (social)

                by dadanation on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 03:41:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We need more of them! (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  dadanation

                  I don't know that many black folk.  I should ask my mother, her neighborhood is more mixed than ours.  It is a predominantly Roman Catholic area - mostly in the social justice tradition.

                  Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

                  by Fabian on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 10:03:54 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  having done a year of lay volunteer work (3+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    PaintyKat, Fabian, RisingTide

                    that was supported by the religious order that ran my university, i am so dismayed by the jekyll-hyde phenomenon we call the catholic church.  some of the most progressive social justice movements (like the sanctuary movement and the andre house, etc.) have deep roots i the catholic church yet, this is the same hypocritical institution that makes women second class citizens and dooms queers to a life of misery and unwelcome.

                    we do need more like bishop yvette flunder and the rev. cecil williams and phill wilson.  sadly we have lost too many like reggie williams and w. j. brandy moore.

                    where in the us are you, btw?

                    _________________________________

                    "Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde."

                    -9.75 (economic), -7.18 (social)

                    by dadanation on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 11:59:47 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Me: columbus OH (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      dadanation

                      Mom is up in eastern cleveland - South Euclid.

                      Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

                      by Fabian on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 04:03:46 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  gocha. thanks for the reply! (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        Fabian

                        i taught in west oakland for a year in my volunteer program.  haven't left the bay area since then (1985) save for my sojourn in DC for 2 years, ten months and 30 days (but who counted?

                        _________________________________

                        "Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde."

                        -9.75 (economic), -7.18 (social)

                        by dadanation on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 12:54:11 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Columbus is way mixed. (1+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          dadanation

                          It's the capital city and home to OSU so it has the mix of educated immigrants of any large university city.  Plus northern whites and Appalachian whites(Baptist, Fundamentalists to some extent), southern whites(Indiana, Kentucky/Cincinnati), old immigrant populations largely from Europe(Catholic, Presbyters, Methodists), UU, plus some of the more obnoxious churches like The Vineyard.  The black population is largely northern blacks.  The great northward migration  slowed greatly when the Industrial North turned into the Rust Belt.

                          Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

                          by Fabian on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:25:56 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

        •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

          Ask a AA GLBT person about that sometime...

          No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...

          by jarhead5536 on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 01:30:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  my lover was black (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            moiv, stormcoming

            and i am white.  

            not once, ever, as the only white person at huge family gatherings, etc. was i ever treated to one derogatory, mean, homophobic comment, whisper or chuckle.

            i can't sat the same for when my partner and i went to my sister's wedding and he found himself the only black person in a sea of white folks.

            my partner's grandfather grew up with and was best friends of bayard rustin.  they all knew he was gay and it was not a big deal to them growing up.

            rustin's homosexuality WAS a big deal to j edgar hoover.

            not all black people are homophobic, and not all black clergy either.  one of the highest ranking christian leaders in the christian church happens to be an out black lesbian, the bishop dr. rev. yvette flunder.

            she's the first to talk about homophobia and racism, both within her community and within the larger community.  

            it is not as easy as we would like the divide to be.

            _________________________________

            "Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde."

            -9.75 (economic), -7.18 (social)

            by dadanation on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:08:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Rec'd (0+ / 0-)

        for being concise!  Excellent Reader's Digest version of events...

        No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...

        by jarhead5536 on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 01:29:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama (7+ / 0-)

    seems to be trying to be all things to all people, and in doing so, is stepping on a few toes.  Clinton does the same thing, but she does it by not taking a stand on anything.  These are two of the types of politicians which are most prevalent.  If you don't wish to engage, then don't be surprised if you are not represented in the end product.

    What would it take

    And as for "Queer," Dan, you haven't earned the right to use that word.

    for him to "earn" the right to use that word, in your mind?

    Don't confuse this confusion with disorganization, because we're not that organized yet. -5.13/-3.38

    by Grannus on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:43:47 PM PDT

    •  The term isn't his to use (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, second gen

      What would it take...for him to "earn" the right to use that word, in your mind?

      There's no way for him to do so, without a fundamental  rejection and repositioning of himself against the very thing he to his core is.

      Being "Queered" meant being an outsider. To be Queer, as those of us in Queer Nation used to define it had to do with "deviating" from the social expectation/norm;

      Trans, Gay, Bi, Lesbian, Leather, gender traitors of all kinds, the intentionally (and politically) childfree, fetishists, etc.

      Are there some heterosexuals in there? Of course, but you don't end up in there by default, you end up in there by intent. Queer is always an 'on purpose. It's about taking the linguistic weapon being hurled at you out of your opponents toolbox and using it back against them, as an identity, a personal identification, and and an act of proud defiance.

      No I'm not saying pDan himself is identifying as Queer, hear me out, I'm saying he's using the terminology of the oppressed for his own and his institution's own purposes, that is, in service to the work and the the very institution that is oppressing us in the first place.

      Now how the hell anyone associated with privilege and non-deviation the likes of a pastor, any pastor, could use the term Queer from any position in rejection of the dominant paradigm, especially as his own words in that very diary (calling for g/l/b/t types to come to christ is hardly transgressive, if anything, it has more in common with McClurkin and his work than it does with me as Queer/it's about the LEAST transgressive thing he could possibly put in a diary with the word Queer slapped on it) support such, is unconscionable.

      No I'm not saying pDan isn't Queered, I'm saying the word Queer is not something someone who is part of the power structure can use back against the very thing he's in the middle of. You can't have your feet in both.

      That and Queer is always hard earned. It has to do with a personal identification with the VICTIMS not the "victors". You can't identify with the power structure oppressing other Queers and then use the word Queer back at us as if he somehow has a right to the term.

      Queer is mine to use, if for no other reason than I fought alongside and held those rejected by society and spat upon by the church in my arms, dying of AIDS abandoned by their families out of homophobia. I am Queer.

      You can't be a part of the system and use Queered language as if to reject the system even as the words coming out of your lips are to join the system, which just so happens to have it's boot on our necks.

      No matter he may feel 'external' to parts of the institution, and no matter how much parts of the institution would reject him, he still fundamentally identifies with the institution that is very central to the oppression of the very people he's marketing to.

      barf.org : a resource for all who work to monitor and counter the Biblical America movement.

      by stormcoming on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 05:28:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't feel (0+ / 0-)

        that PastorDan was asking queers to come to Jesus. I felt that he was asking Christians to stop misinterpreting the Bible. I do, of course, understand your hostility to Christianity. I feel the same way, but in this instance you completely misunderstand both what PastorDan is saying and who he's talking to.

        T.

        George Bush - the "Prince John" of American politics.

        by troutwaxer on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 06:24:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some days even he doesn't seem to know (0+ / 0-)

          Well, his theology goes back and forth, between insisting

          that we're ALREADY "adopted by god" and now need to live up to the "calling"(/expectations) his "god" places upon us (never mind the fact that some of us never consented to any of that shit)

          and/or

          that the "promise of christianity is available to all" which would imply outsiders would have to in some way opt in. (Which acknowledges that I'm still outside, but then makes the sales pitch)

          Either way, his post certainly puts demands upon those either internal or external depending on his mood/time of day/phase of the mood/theological leaning of the moment.

          This is hardly some kind of internal to christianity/for christians discussion and I think he'd be the first to acknowledge that.

          See the below raw quotes from pDan:

          "You, my friends, have been adopted by God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So have I. ... And you, like us, are called to stand with and suffer for the poor, the powerless, the lowly and the despised "

          "and about what God wants from you and me."

          "the promise of Christianity is available to all."

          You know, his "god" is welcome to want whatever from me, that hardly means "he" or more to the point "his" earthly representatives are going to get it. But don't try to pass his diary off as some internal thing having no inherent demands on those external to his system.

          barf.org : a resource for all who work to monitor and counter the Biblical America movement.

          by stormcoming on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 07:40:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you can see yourself outside and within (0+ / 0-)

            at the same time.
            I sure as hell have, before.
            And Pastor Dan equates Jesus with love, so...
            Also a perspective that thinks that people will be judged by their works (and maybe not particularly by their faith), is a perspective that leads to more tolerance.

            I think Jesus was a megalomaniac and possibly schizo too.  Doesn't mean he wasn't a good guy.

            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

            by RisingTide on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 11:32:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  In this case, then, (0+ / 0-)

        you would have said that he didn't have the right to use queer, not that he hadn't earned the right.  It's a semantical difference with larger undertones, in my thinking.

        No matter he may feel 'external' to parts of the institution, and no matter how much parts of the institution would reject him, he still fundamentally identifies with the institution that is very central to the oppression of the very people he's marketing to.

        By this example, you leave yourself open to ties to the Republican Fascists.  You paint with a broad brush, when all you need to paint is the trim.

        Don't confuse this confusion with disorganization, because we're not that organized yet. -5.13/-3.38

        by Grannus on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 12:59:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No (0+ / 0-)

          actually he could still to this very day "earn the right", but it would mean stepping external to the institution, rejecting it, and ultimately fighting against the very thing he was once a part of.

          It would also mean working alongside, as a co-outsider with the directly affected.

          So technically, he still COULD "earn the right"

          But ultimately it's not in HIS eyes whether or not he's "earned" it, it's in the eyes of those suffering/on the receiving end. And speaking as one on the receiving end, it's not for him to use.

          barf.org : a resource for all who work to monitor and counter the Biblical America movement.

          by stormcoming on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 09:40:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Words are words... (0+ / 0-)

            If his institution fights for you, will you reject it?

            I can understand the word being inappropriate -- but aren't there gentler ways of saying "this offends me?"

            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

            by RisingTide on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 11:34:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well, since you asked (0+ / 0-)

              If his institution fights for you, will you reject it?

              Well, as they don't, it's a moot point.

              Even the 'pro-gay' churches that I've seen in (in)action would rather hem and haw and contemplate possibly maybe doing something someday or then again maybe possibly endorsing a statement rather than actually showing up when the chips are down.

              The chips were really down on this one, and I think Queers learned who our friends weren't.

              I can understand the word being inappropriate -- but aren't there gentler ways of saying "this offends me?"

              First of all, this isn't just some personal offense. This is a co-optation that is an offense to the memories of many of my dead friends. And they died for being Queer.

              Is it really 'my job' to be gentle when "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" (Animal Farm) here on dKos?

              Face it, Queers are the out group, pDan and his ilk are the 'in' group. In terms of who wields the power to define and be listened to, it ain't Queers, even when we're the ones being affected.

              It is for one minute really 'my job' to be gentle when some of the primary voices this community are hearing in relation to this, and defining this for them are those of heterosexuals and pDan- a man who is neck deep in the very institution killing us daily?

              barf.org : a resource for all who work to monitor and counter the Biblical America movement.

              by stormcoming on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 06:54:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I walk by a UUC every week. (0+ / 0-)

                They have banners up.
                "Civil Marriage is a Civil Right" -- All in rainbow colors.

                It makes me smile.  Is that enough of a statement for you? (and if they're using such strong statements as recruitment -- it is out for all to see -- what of it?) If not, let's open the dialogue by asking what you would want (and as I am kinda ignorant on the whole counter-culture thing, forgive my ignorance).

                Is it inappropriate to use the term Queer if you aren't queer?  It seems to me like Pastor Dan was trying for a 'big' name (so he didn't use gay and have lesbians or trannies annoyed with him).

                Are you sure that you're not getting listened to because of Pastor Dan? After all, I dropped into this diary on the account of his kvetching confusion.

                FWIW, the trend I have noticed in diaries is that longer ones tend to get a lot of recommends -- also topical or newsworthy ones.  And it seems like Pastor Dan was expressing a rather minority view found in Christianity.

                You have defined queer as the out group, the counterculture. By definition, they can't be the ones with influence. However, I think in society as a whole, it's not Pastor Dan who speaks for Christianity (and he says so himself!).  The people who hate queers speak for christianity, sad as it may be.  

                If you think that there should be a defined 'queer blog' -- and it sounds like a cool idea, as it seems you're kinda smarting here -- why not get Kos to host it? (that's what pastor dan does, after all).

                I've been influenced a bit by Pastor Dan -- who tries to keep things pretty much respectful on his blog (i.e. no 'christians(categorically) are evil' or 'theism sucks').  No, it ain't your job to be gentle -- but there are times when you can forget you've got friends around here -- and they don't always listen so close when they're being yelled at.

                Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                by RisingTide on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 05:40:05 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Well, stormy ... (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Sara R, wiscmass, Marko the Werelynx

        I'm a 51 year old Southern gay male who came out in 1974, and I give my permission for PD to use the term Queer. I mean, it's not like you have a trademark on the word, though you seem to think so ...

        •  ya know (0+ / 0-)

          Seems to me you're busy identifying as Gay- how about leaving Queers to us Queers?

          I don't see how you can dole out permission for use of a term you yourself don't identify with.

          barf.org : a resource for all who work to monitor and counter the Biblical America movement.

          by stormcoming on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 02:32:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ... Do I need to find the clue by four? (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Thirst

            ;-)
            seriously, dumkop.

            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

            by RisingTide on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 11:44:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Oh puh-LEEEZ girlfriend ... (4+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Sara R, virgomusic, RisingTide, Thirst

            ... stop with the "I'm soooooo special" bullshit. You're just a self-important radical who likes to masturbate with words.

            Do you REALLY think you and your fellow queers OWN the word, or the concept ? Sugar-dumplin', I was queer long before you were born.

            •  The werewolf on the other hand (0+ / 0-)

              Is just a street prophets (pDan's joint) front pager with nothing better to do than attack anyone who dares cast a whithering glance at a sacred cow (pDan) or two.

              Yup filling up other people's diaries with post after post after post, as the time to comment on it runs out is certainly mature behaviour, but as I said, some of the animals around here are a bit more equal than others of us.

              I never said I owned Queer, I just said that it is the property of the dispossessed, not the societally privileged.

              Sugar-dumplin', I was queer long before you were born.

              Whether that be true or not (I doubt it) the only real question is were you in the streets when it mattered, or were you cowering in church, praying someone else would do the real work to save your sorry ass?

              barf.org : a resource for all who work to monitor and counter the Biblical America movement.

              by stormcoming on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 07:15:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your problem, Little Cloud Burst ... (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                RisingTide, Thirst

                ... is that you cast a withering glance at everything ! You're one of those angry, angry, angry folk that nobody but other angry, angry, angry folk can stand to be around.

                Well, since you've made it LOUDLY, VIGOROUSLY and REPEATEDLY clear that you are THE spokesdroid for the dispossessed (SUCH the victim you are, is there a prize for that ?) then claim Queer ®™ is the property of same, it's obvious you think you own it. You certainly bludgeon people with it as if it were your own personal blackjack.

                As for "in the street", that's the problem with overwrought, screeching radicals like yourself - you're convinced that if action ain't in your face, in the street, it's worthless. Since the epidemic broke, I've cleaned up the diarrhea and vomit of folk with AIDS in my care; in addition, I wrote at length about my grief journey as a gay male widow and it was so effective that several straight widows and widowers made a point to tell me that it changed their minds about the validity of gay love.

                Now, go piss on someone else's accomplishments, will you - or better yet, go accomplish something yourself, instead of wasting your energy on these pathetic attempts to parse words and enforce meaningless Queer-er Than Thou purity.

                •  STILL at it, I see (0+ / 0-)

                  Who's the one with the real problem here, Mr. "I just can't let it go?"

                  You think you're the only one who has been up to their elbows in shit and vomit slogging through the hell that AIDS has meant to ALL OF US? Doing whatever little we can to be there as those we love die in our arms?

                  Show me Queers, or humans for that matter who haven't fucking lost. We ALL lost. We ALL STILL to THIS VERY MINUTE continue to loose.

                  You know nothing of my life.

                  Did I ever say if it's not in the street it's worthless? No. I said when it really matters, in the streets (action) is worth of a hell of a lot more than prayer (whining to the wind).

                  Doing (working for access to drugs, to housing, to basic rights) is worth more than private words (to the invisible sky fairy of one's choice).

                  barf.org : a resource for all who work to monitor and counter the Biblical America movement.

                  by stormcoming on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 11:19:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  *I* can't let it go ? (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Thirst

                    Ha-hahahahahahahahahahahahaha !

                    Oh, little purity troll, you are SO easy to make a fool of ! Game, set and match ! Run along now, I'm sure you have some sort of True Queer ®™ strategy summit to attend. All 3 of you ...

                  •  Dude, fucking pay attention. (0+ / 0-)

                    He just TOLD you what he's done to make the world a better place.  Now, I don't know you either, so I can't say whether you've accomplished anything, but I CAN say that whining about people supposedly slighting you or not doing anything when YOU don't know any better and DON'T have any previous claim to have martyred yourself doesn't give you much ground to ride on.

                    Now get off your high horse; we all got work to do.  We're just trying to show you how you're wasting your time.

                    •  well as usual (0+ / 0-)

                      yet another commenter who has written less than 5 diaries, showing up days after the post. Stunned stunned am I.