They accuse me of being anti-gay and a bigot," McClurkin said. "We don't believe in discrimination. We don't believe in hatred, and if you do you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's the whole premise of God. That's the whole premise of Christ is love, love, love. But there is a side of Christ that deals in judgment, and all sin is against God." McClurkin has said that homosexuality is a choice and that he overcame homosexual desires through prayer, comments that drew fire from gay and lesbian activists and caught the Obama campaign, which has been using faith to reach out to African-American voters, off guard. The Grammy-winning singer said Sunday his words had been "twisted."
"Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay, when I have been touched by the same feelings," McClurkin went on. "When I have suffered with the same feelings. Don't call me a homophobe, when I love everybody … Don't tell me that I stand up and I say vile words against the gay community because I don't. I don't speak against the homosexual. I tell you that God delivered me from homosexuality." McClurkin's words drew raucous applause from the crowd, who had lined up around the block to get into the Township Auditorium in Columbia
I forget: What was it that Jesus said about homosexuality?
Why should Obama dismiss one homosexual based on other homosexual's opposing political views?
I won't support him for pandering to the worst instincts of the American people.
Does the same go for Hillary for you which leaves Edwards?. Obama has not pandered to anyone other than the GLBT community. And he is paying the price for that. McClurkin has not said anything for him to be labelled a bigot or homphobe:
They accuse me of being anti-gay and a bigot," McClurkin said. "We don't believe in discrimination. We don't believe in hatred, and if you do you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's the whole premise of God. That's the whole premise of Christ is love, love, love. But there is a side of Christ that deals in judgment, and all sin is against God." McClurkin has said that homosexuality is a choice and that he overcame homosexual desires through prayer, comments that drew fire from gay and lesbian activists and caught the Obama campaign, which has been using faith to reach out to African-American voters, off guard. The Grammy-winning singer said Sunday his words had been "twisted."
"Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay, when I have been touched by the same feelings," McClurkin went on. "When I have suffered with the same feelings. Don't call me a homophobe, when I love everybody … Don't tell me that I stand up and I say vile words against the gay community because I don't. I don't speak against the homosexual. I tell you that God delivered me from homosexuality." McClurkin's words drew raucous applause from the crowd, who had lined up around the block to get into the Township Auditorium in Columbia
rmrdooo
That article that was linked to is really shoddy journalism. The headline says Obama said nothing but Obama was not even there.He is not on the tour at all. This is nothing but a smear campaign. The writeup made it sound like McClurkin had a platform to speak when all they did was ask him for comments at the end of the show. But the article is really trying to inflame the issue.
MClurkin has not uttered one word of hate, he has only shared how he deals with his own homosexuality. For the gay community to come out and tar and feather this man is such a viscious hateful manner is really sad. MCclurkin deserves our compassion for having to be the victim of such a message of intolerance. I know that there are people who support the gay agenda but when they strike out at people who do not adhere to the gay political message that just makes them come across as bullies without need of tolerance.
I am beginning to beleive that there must be an aawful lot of truth to what MClurkin is saying for the gay community to be so strong about hating him. That article also attacked the Gay minister. If the gay community was really interested in change they would have supported the messager.
glissade said:
The headline says Obama said nothing but Obama was not even there. He is not on the tour at all.
---------
I'm not surprised. I have come to accept the fact that some piece of information stated as fact by MSM can very easily be shown to be incorrect.
I'm going to spend part of the evening tracking down the facts.
Thanks
If a religious person truly "loves" someone else, shouldn't that love be an unconditional love, without judgment?
The love is unconditional. The religion says that the person can be forgiven their sins. That is why they love the sinner but hate the sin. God is the one who forgives the sin. The rest of the folks are sinners as well just that they have different sins. Which means we can all love one another without condoning or embracing each other's sins. Because god gave us the freewill to choose, we also know that we are making the choice to engage in any sin. McClurkin says that his faith helps him deal with his feelings, he does not say that he is cured. Only that his faith can help him to not succumb to the temptations of his feelings. He chooses, just like a man chooses to be monogamous to his wife no matter the temptations and desires he may have for a female who is not his spouse.
It's this illogical axiom that allows people like McCurkin to claim they're not anti-gay.
You sound angry and you seem to want to hurt a person who already has significant problems and is trying to deal with them the best they know how. McClurkin does not say anything against gays. He only tells homosexuals that through faith they can, if they choose, learn not to submit to those temptations. That does not sound hateful. Ministers tell young females and males the same thing about being promiscuous or engaging in pre-marital sex, it is not just homosexuals that are thought to be able to manage their sexual desires by their choices. It is all human beings. I am sorry that you hurt so much that you are unable to find it in your heart to embrace others beliefs without attacking them and calling them names.
You know the word homophobe is just as hateful as the derogatory words used to describe gays. None of those words are ever used in a respectful manner they are flung at people to hurt and wound, out of hate.
I hope you will think about not calling people homophobes or anti-gay unless they are engaged in activities which hurt gays as people. The politics of gays in terms of how they have treated McClurkin has been just very mean-spirited. It is very sad to see so much hate coming from the gay community against another gay person who suffers just like they may have, to the extent that he is not accepted by homosexuals despite openly acknowledging being one of them.
To me, homosexuals hating homosexuals protesting another homosexual and attempting hinder him from employment is the most illogical thing here.
Hatred of self is the most terrible thing of all.
First, I never said "hate." You brought up hate.
Next, Barack Obama, as I previously said, has stated publicly he disagrees with McClurkin. There is no dispute that McClurkin is out of, at the least, Democratic mainstream with what he has said.
So don't twist this all around to make it seem like I'm somehow coming out of the blue with "hateful" things to say about him.
Ministers tell young females and males the same thing about being promiscuous or engaging in pre-marital sex, it is not just homosexuals that are thought to be able to manage their sexual desires by their choices. It is all human beings.
This is bullshit.
I hope you will think about not calling people homophobes or anti-gay unless they are engaged in activities which hurt gays as people.
"there are countless people who are discontent in this lifestyle and want to be freed from it. They were thrust into homosexuality by neglect, abuse and molestation."
"We do it with the drug addict! We do it with the alcoholic! So why can we not do it with those who have sexual differences?"
"There are certain things like, you know, anybody who has a lying problem; they get to the point where they hate being so, having such a lack of character that they make a change."
"The gloves are off and if there's going to be a war, there's going to be a war. But it will be a war with a purpose? I'm not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children."
I'm sure you'll find only love in those words, but I don't.
I will pray for you..you are deeply wounded and unable to see past your hurt.
Uh, no... people who disagree with your religion are not deeply wounded or in need of prayer or any other sanctimonius garbage.
I can't even believe that on a progressive Web site there are self-described Democrats who don't believe that homosexual marriages should be recognized by the state, or that homophobes should be shunned by polite society. You're all going to feel really stupid 10 years from now when you realize how far behind the mainstream you were. It's Archie Bunkerish. 30 years too late.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
Uh, no... people who disagree with your religion are not deeply wounded or in need of prayer or any other sanctimonius garbage.
His disagreeing with religion has nothing to do with his being wounded and in need of prayer. He is in need of prayer because he is unable to accept other homosexuals choices without lashing out at them and calling them anti-gay and the peole who accept McClurkin homophobes. The need to strike out at other homosexuals means he is deeply hurt. . That is not about religion just human compassion. His spirit is not at peace and he does need prayer. Perhaps, you do as well, the way you jumped on the post to oppose the message.
I can't even believe that on a progressive Web site there are self-described Democrats who don't believe that homosexual marriages should be recognized by the state, or that homophobes should be shunned by polite society
Believe it. It seems that you are attempting to limit the diversity of views by labels. If you call something progressive it can't include views that don't adhere to your beliefs and gay politics. Which sounds very narrow-minded. But then that is the what is going on here isn't it. This is how homosexuals force others to get in line with their politics..through haranging, harassing and being intolerant of views they disagree with.
I hope you are enlighten by being exposed to views that are different from yours.
Personally, I can't believe that people can't accept that there are homosexuals who choose prayer and faith as a means to manage their homosexual desires. There are also many men like Senator Craig and Gov MCGreevy who choose to live a married life. . It should disturb you that you have to call it 'homosexual' marriage rather than marriage. You see that is like saying dysfunctional family rather than family...it tells you something is wrong.
Homophobe is just hate language being spewed at people because they hate themselves and they want to vent their emotional pain and hurt on others in some kind of twisted way they belive that makes their suffering better. MCClurkin understands that homosexuals are really wounded souls in need of love and compassion.
I'll pray for you also.
Imagine if you'd said, "McClurkin understands that Christians are really wounded souls in need of love and compassion." Just imagine. It wouldn't go over well.
And, hey... let's start passing laws stopping Christians from marrying each other. You'd have to be fine with that. After all Christianity is a choice, it's just a behavior, and there's no reason to protect a behavior. Besides, Christians are just people with wounded psyches who are probably repressing homosexual desires. In fact, all this talk about Christians having the same rights as everyone else is just an attempt to push a Christian political agenda.
By the way, you've made some leaps about the sexual orientations of the people you're arguing with. Just something for you to think about.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
Imagine if you'd said, "McClurkin understands that Christians are really wounded souls in need of love and compassion." Just imagine. It wouldn't go over well.
Why not. Most sinners are wounded souls. Most people who are religious seek faith as a means to find comfort for the discontent they feel within.
let's start passing laws stopping Christians from marrying each other.
Well neither Catholicism or Judaism allows marriage unless you convert to their faith.
After all Christianity is a choice, it's just a behavior, and there's no reason to protect a behavior
No Christianity is a belief a faith, that is not a behavior.
Besides, Christians are just people with wounded psyches who are probably repressing homosexual desires.
Many do struggle with carnal desires as well as sloth, pride and greed.
In fact, all this talk about Christians having the same rights as everyone else is just an attempt to push a Christian political agenda.
Choosing a faith is a choice that all citizens have, just like all American citizens can choose marriage. Or they can remain single. Changing the concept of marriage and family to meet the desires of a few is just not in the best interest of children and families. Adult sexual desires cannot take precedence over the right of a child to be raised with a mother and father, in terms of what society promotes. If it happens, out of some misfortune or circumstance, that is bad enough. It should never be something that society strives for and projects as ideal for child rearing such that there are financial incentives and benefits offered. That type of setting does not benefit the needs of society which has to place first the best interest of children and society vs. adult sexual desires.
By the way, you've made some leaps about the sexual orientations of the people you're arguing with. Just something for you to think about.
I doubt it but then that is the thing about behaviors, people never have to acknowledge they engage in them. They can claim to be anything which is all the more reason not to consider changing the culture and fabric of society. The desire could pass after a year or two and the individual could find that their lives are easily managed through faith and prayer without society having to turn itself upside down for a behavior folks are unwilling to claim. It is all so twisted which is why prayer helps.
Not one of your absolute statements about how children should be raised is defensible. Sorry.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
The statements are defensible. You simply disagree. You're entitled to hold an opposing view Destor ....and without being called a bigot.
Finally, he should have thrown the preacher under the bus, not the whole gay-lesbian community and those that support them. He could have found a suitable replacement and hept the gospel hour rolling.
Who is throwing whom under the bus here?
The Obama haters are acting as if McClurkin is some sort of adviser and setting policy. It's unfortunate that McClurkin's said ignorant things, but how will this affect an Obama presidency?
How does McClurkin's singing affect Senator Obama's position on the issues of rights and justice for all people, including gays?
And why does it matter that McClurkin is doing this concert with Obama's campaign if he's not using that stage as a platform to spread homophobia?
McClurkin's there simply to entertain, and I bet there would be a lot of p/o'd (potential) Obama supporters if McClurkin had been booted out of the concert.
Instead, this controversy has forced Obama to restate his positions in favor of gay rights, but some people can never be satisfied, they want blood, they want heads rolling, they demand that Obama sacrifice support for its own sake. What purpose would it have served to fire this man? That point is lost on me.
I don't understand this controversy, especially with homophobia being so pervasive among Democrats and Republicans. But if this is what it takes for you to reject Obama, then you probably have other issues with him anyway.
If you're the type to forego Seinfeld to avoid Michael "Pitchfork In Your Ass" Richards, then by all means, forego Obama. But don't forget that Senator Clinton and John Edwards have also positioned themselves to deliver gays something less than equality.
So I would say, make sure you're rejecting the right guy before you endorse "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Clinton, "It's a choice" Richardson, or "my wife believes in gay marriage but I don't" Edwards.
I promise not to be condescending, obnoxious and/or sarcastic.
It's a pet peeve, so please forgive or indulge me:
"Who is throwing whom under the bus here?"
It's "Who is throwing who." Whom is only used for indirect objects. The person being thrown under the bus is the direct object of the subject--the one doing the throwing. For example, Who does Barrack throw under the bus? Barrack throws gay people under the bus. Who throws gay people under the bus? Barrack throws gay people under the bus.
Michael Richards is an ironic choice for comparison. Would it be okay if Barrack hired Michael Richards to warm up the crowd? He was funny as Kramer, and he's not going to use the platform to advance his racist views. What about using Richard Wagner? He composed pretty music, and he won't use the platform to advance his racist views. What about Aaron McKinney and Russel Henderson? I heard they do a dead-on gay man impersonation, and as long as they are not promoting their own murderous inclinations, no foul.
Your suggestion that he would have alienated the gay-hating christian audience he was pandering to by swapping gospel singers is appalling. Good thing he wasn't addressing the KKK or neo-Nazis.
Maybe its the company you keep, and not just the lip service paid at the podium. When deciding who to support you need to weigh promises with the evidence. Barrack's sweet promises seem to fall apart when confronted with the evidence.
Of course, those who wish to advocate for Barrack are just defective and should be relegated to second class status and feel lucky for not being openly persecuted, since they are damned to hell anyway
Remember my promise not to be condescending, obnoxious and/or sarcastic? How does my promise stack up against my post (evidence)?
/c
In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.
cscs: Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
It's interesting to note that MSNBC has been airing a blurb this morning saying that Obama is planning to criticize Clinton more forcefully in the debate tomorrow. I guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow to see if he's able to pull it off. But I agree that if Obama isn't as strong as hoped, there seems to be a problem for Dems who are looking for a viable alterntive to Clinton. It's what I see as her hawkishness that worries me. Of course, everything could change once the actual voting begins.
Too bad Gore's not in it. Gore-Obama sounded just about perfect to me.
Edited to add: This issue has now reached CNN, where it's generating a lot of debate, and also the Huffington Post, where it's the first story on the home page, with the same big headline as at CNN, saying, "Reverend McClurkin At Obama Event: "God Delivered Me From Homosexuality" Oddly, the comments at the HP were apparently closed from the outset.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
Why can't they?
flxzips
Having tools is quite different from knowing what to do with the tools.
Hoppy in Sacramento
Destor...
Obama is not touring with McClurkin.
McClurkin is a homosexual. Based on how you define anti-gay he is not anti-gay nor a bigot.
Which is it, WRB? Is homosexuality genetic or a choice? I keep seeing your posts talking about it being a choice, and not something someone is born with.
In which case, according to your definition, McClurkin is not a homosexual. He has claimed to make the choice, after his supposed god "delivered" him from homosexuality, that he will no longer be homosexual.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Is est vicis muto probo.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity Where everybody knows your name... unless you use a pseudonym
Yes or no: do you believe that a gay person cannot be anti-gay?
~~~~~~~~~~~
Is est vicis muto probo.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity Where everybody knows your name... unless you use a pseudonym
What is interesting is that except for Monica, which was admittedly stupid, there were no real Clinton scandals. What there was was a lot of made up stuff which the MSM echoed and which the far left having abandoned Clinton there was very little defense.
I am not Gay nor do I speak for Gays. However, your condescending view of Gays is hysterical. My friend who's sister is Gay and is activitly involved with both Lightspeed and Integrity, says there is a lot of anger in the Gay community directed at Obama.
Obama is no visionary. He is a non-Baby Boom politician who may or may not change the focus of politics that have been stuck in a rut since the late 1960s. However, so far he looks a lot like any Harvard graduate who runs for political office.
Personally I prefer Biden but he is not going anywhere. The top six Democrats are a huge improvement over both Bush and what would really satisfy the far left. Any of them should be able to beat any Republican candidate. However, so far Obama has not run a very impressive campaign. His handling of this issue does not speak to savy.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
Good Morning Daniel,
What is interesting is that except for Monica, which was admittedly stupid, there were no real Clinton scandals.
The Clinton administration is plague by scandals, whitewater, travelgate, monicagate, wagthedoggate,markrichgate, laniguaniergate, vncefostergate, genifflowersgate, juanitebroderickgate, hillaryhealthcaregate,NAFTAgate. Now these may not be literally scandals but they all are political controversies and tremendous political baggage.
I am not Gay nor do I speak for Gays. However, your condescending view of Gays is hysterical
Dying of laughter are you?. I see no condescencion in what is clearly the political reality of how the gay community has been Hillary's pawn with this manufactured 'outrage'. There is a clear double standard and it breaks along racial lines as well since Hilliary's 20 point lead has a lot to do with the black vote. Without it those numbers drop big and I think her political gamble is going to help Obama in the end.
My friend who's sister is Gay and is activitly involved with both Lightspeed and Integrity, says there is a lot of anger in the Gay community directed at Obama.
About what? Please do not rehash McClurkin. As there should be just as much anger about Hillary if the gay political agenda is at the core. Heck the gay community did not even support Rev Sidden who had the best opportunity to bridge the gap.
Obama is no visionary.He is a non-Baby Boom politician who may or may not change the focus of politics that have been stuck in a rut since the late 1960s
Yes, he is a visionary as he is the only one who had the foresight to change the cynicism in politics and possess the political language to do so. and he is ahead of his time. He speaks the language that can bridge the divisive and polarized politics that we live with. No one else is doing that or can do it. Hillary is a classic example, she simply perpetuates and perfects it having watched it sustain the GOP. She trods the path that has already been made. Obama blazes new trails. Hillary basically believes the ends justify the means. She is out to win, not govern so that we can move ahead as a nation. She is willing to plan one faction off against another as long as it keeps her in a position of power. There will not be any progress for us as citizens. Whereas, Obama seeks to build consensus and move the nation forward with progressive policies. Obama believes that the government can work for it’s citizens and he is committed to doing that. Are you even aware of his record on enacted bills that are focused on substance? For instance:
Nonproliferation
the poster child for issues that people ought to care about, but don't. Obama has teamed up with Richard Lugar (R-IN). Here's the Washington Monthly:In addition to working on nuclear non-proliferation, Obama and Lugar co-sponsored legislation expanding the Nunn-Lugar framework (which basically allows the US to fund the destruction or securing of nuclear weapons in other countries) to deal with conventional arms. From an op-ed Obama and Lugar wrote on their legislation:
Avian flu:
Obama was one of the first Senators to speak out on avian flu, back in the spring of 2005, when it was a quintessentially wonky issue, not the subject of breathless news reports.He has sponsored legislation, including what I think is the first bill dedicated to pandemic flu preparedness
Regulating Genetic Testing you might be surprised at how little quality control there is over genetic testing.
This is serious, and bad. Suppose you are mistakenly informed that you are a carrier for some horrible disease: you might decide never to have kids. Suppose you have a fetus tested and you are told that it has, say, Downs' syndrome: you might abort. To do these things as the result of a lab error would be horrible. Not nearly as horrible as the results of some false negatives, though. Consider this case (from a very good report on the topic):"A Florida couple both tested negative for the genetic mutation that causes Tay-Sachs, a fatal childhood disease. Two copies of the mutation are required to cause the disease. The couple learned that the test results were incorrect for both parents when their son began exhibiting symptoms of Tay-Sachs shortly after birth. He died eight years later"
Reducing medical malpractice suits the right way
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton teamed up to introduce legislation aimed at helping hospitals to develop programs for disclosure of medical errorsThose are some of the wonkier things he's done. (There are others: introducing legislation to make it illegal for tax preparers to sell personal information, for instance, and legislation on chemical plant security and lead paint.) He has done other things that are more high-profile, including:
Making certain kinds of voter intimidation illegal
A lobbying reform bill (with Tom Coburn), which would do all sorts of good things, notably including one of my perennial favorites, requiring that bills be made available to members of Congress at least 72 hours before they have to vote on them.
And a proposal to revamp ethics oversight, replacing the present ethics Committee with a bipartisan commission of retired judges and members of Congress, and allowing any citizen to report ethics violations. This would have fixed one of the huge problems with the present system, namely: that the members have to police themselves.
For a freshman Senator in the minority party, (at the time) he has a decent record of getting his proposals enacted.
However, so far Obama has not run a very impressive campaign. His handling of this issue does not speak to savy.
While I think this is a fair criticism, I also believe that is not the most important quality to have in a President. Most folks who work in business, such as yourself, know that a person who interviews well, typically interviews a lot and more often times than not impressive interviews are not great employees/executives. So, as much as Obama may not be savvy on the campaign trail I am much more assured about the vision he has for America and how he has worked to achieve that and in particular how those skills will stand him in good stead as a President as he has the judgment and leadership ability to move us forward.
Yes, I know how well he campaigns may determine if he gets that chance, but I am willing to look beyond the campaign knowing that he will be a great President. When it comes to substance vs. spin Obama has it and that is what I want in the oval office. Not another neo-con, warmongering, equivocating power mad virago Who will tell us what she believes we need to hear and instead of the tag line ‘I’m the decider” for the next 4 years we will hear. “I’m your girl!”
Daniel, looks like Obama answered this assertion you made:
'Obama can't afford to alienate Black supporters but can alienate Gays."
Advocate: I know you’re in a difficult position here trying to balance these two constituencies -- but by keeping McClurkin on the tour, didn't you essentially choose your Christian constituency over your gay constituency?
Obama: No, I profoundly disagree with that. This is not a situation where I have backed off my positions one iota. You’re talking to somebody who talked about gay Americans in his convention speech in 2004, who talked about them in his announcement speech for the president of the United States, who talks about gay Americans almost constantly in his stump speeches. If there’s somebody out there who’s been more consistent in including LGBT Americans in his or her vision of what America should be, then I would be interested in knowing who that person is.
One of the things that always comes up in presidential campaigns is, if you’ve got multiple supporters all over the place, should the candidate then be held responsible for the every single view of every one of his supporters? And obviously that’s not possible. And if I start playing that game, then it will be very difficult for me to do what I think I can do best, which is bring the country together
Thera P,
You may wish to know,that the most knowledgable candidate when it comes to the constitution is Barack Obama. He spent 10 years at the Univ of Chicago teaching Constitutional Law and is considered nationally to be well respected constitutional law scholar. The Univer of Chicago is one of the most rigourous institution in the nation when it comes to constitutional law it is ranked third in the country.
Hey workerbee-/:-)
You're right, it is still very early yet. Lot's can happen in a year's time. For one thing, the MSM isn't going to let Hillary run away w/the election this early...they want a horse race...that'll keep the ratings/readers/viewers numbers ($$$) up. If they have to, the MSM will throw some dirt Hillary's way as a way of evening things up a little--even if they have to make something out of nothing--look at that planted question fiasco as an example.
Also, I just watched the speech Obama gave Saturday night in Iowa--C-Span replayed it and I think that was the best speech I've heard from him yet. He was on fire! Good for him. I believe his heart is in the right place. He's not going down without a fight.
That being said, I believe John Edwards is the most qualified, best prepared & sharpest candidate in the field. Most recently, I watched his Nov. 7th stop in New Hampshire...and there's not a doubt in my mind that Edwards is what this country needs right now.
But I do get so damn'd aggravated w/the MSM acting as if this is a 2 candidate race (Hilliary & Barack) all the time...it's infuriating. Edwards clearly has the (much) better platform, yet one hardly ever hears about him. He doesn't get nearly the coverage H & B get...which is pretty frickn' disgusting, imo.
Edwards get's it & he knows what needs to done to get this ailing country back on her feet.
October 29, 2007 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I forget: What was it that Jesus said about homosexuality?
October 30, 2007 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should Obama dismiss one homosexual based on other homosexual's opposing political views?
Does the same go for Hillary for you which leaves Edwards?. Obama has not pandered to anyone other than the GLBT community. And he is paying the price for that. McClurkin has not said anything for him to be labelled a bigot or homphobe:
October 29, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
rmrdooo
That article that was linked to is really shoddy journalism. The headline says Obama said nothing but Obama was not even there.He is not on the tour at all. This is nothing but a smear campaign. The writeup made it sound like McClurkin had a platform to speak when all they did was ask him for comments at the end of the show. But the article is really trying to inflame the issue.
MClurkin has not uttered one word of hate, he has only shared how he deals with his own homosexuality. For the gay community to come out and tar and feather this man is such a viscious hateful manner is really sad. MCclurkin deserves our compassion for having to be the victim of such a message of intolerance. I know that there are people who support the gay agenda but when they strike out at people who do not adhere to the gay political message that just makes them come across as bullies without need of tolerance.
I am beginning to beleive that there must be an aawful lot of truth to what MClurkin is saying for the gay community to be so strong about hating him. That article also attacked the Gay minister. If the gay community was really interested in change they would have supported the messager.
October 29, 2007 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
glissade said:
The headline says Obama said nothing but Obama was not even there. He is not on the tour at all.
---------
I'm not surprised. I have come to accept the fact that some piece of information stated as fact by MSM can very easily be shown to be incorrect.
I'm going to spend part of the evening tracking down the facts.
Thanks
October 29, 2007 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The love is unconditional. The religion says that the person can be forgiven their sins. That is why they love the sinner but hate the sin. God is the one who forgives the sin. The rest of the folks are sinners as well just that they have different sins. Which means we can all love one another without condoning or embracing each other's sins. Because god gave us the freewill to choose, we also know that we are making the choice to engage in any sin. McClurkin says that his faith helps him deal with his feelings, he does not say that he is cured. Only that his faith can help him to not succumb to the temptations of his feelings. He chooses, just like a man chooses to be monogamous to his wife no matter the temptations and desires he may have for a female who is not his spouse.
You sound angry and you seem to want to hurt a person who already has significant problems and is trying to deal with them the best they know how. McClurkin does not say anything against gays. He only tells homosexuals that through faith they can, if they choose, learn not to submit to those temptations. That does not sound hateful. Ministers tell young females and males the same thing about being promiscuous or engaging in pre-marital sex, it is not just homosexuals that are thought to be able to manage their sexual desires by their choices. It is all human beings. I am sorry that you hurt so much that you are unable to find it in your heart to embrace others beliefs without attacking them and calling them names.
You know the word homophobe is just as hateful as the derogatory words used to describe gays. None of those words are ever used in a respectful manner they are flung at people to hurt and wound, out of hate.
I hope you will think about not calling people homophobes or anti-gay unless they are engaged in activities which hurt gays as people. The politics of gays in terms of how they have treated McClurkin has been just very mean-spirited. It is very sad to see so much hate coming from the gay community against another gay person who suffers just like they may have, to the extent that he is not accepted by homosexuals despite openly acknowledging being one of them.
To me, homosexuals hating homosexuals protesting another homosexual and attempting hinder him from employment is the most illogical thing here.
Hatred of self is the most terrible thing of all.
October 29, 2007 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I never said "hate." You brought up hate.
Next, Barack Obama, as I previously said, has stated publicly he disagrees with McClurkin. There is no dispute that McClurkin is out of, at the least, Democratic mainstream with what he has said.
So don't twist this all around to make it seem like I'm somehow coming out of the blue with "hateful" things to say about him.
Ministers tell young females and males the same thing about being promiscuous or engaging in pre-marital sex, it is not just homosexuals that are thought to be able to manage their sexual desires by their choices. It is all human beings.
This is bullshit.
I hope you will think about not calling people homophobes or anti-gay unless they are engaged in activities which hurt gays as people.
Here are McCurkin's words:
I'm sure you'll find only love in those words, but I don't.
October 29, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will pray for you..you are deeply wounded and unable to see past your hurt.
October 29, 2007 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, no... people who disagree with your religion are not deeply wounded or in need of prayer or any other sanctimonius garbage.
I can't even believe that on a progressive Web site there are self-described Democrats who don't believe that homosexual marriages should be recognized by the state, or that homophobes should be shunned by polite society. You're all going to feel really stupid 10 years from now when you realize how far behind the mainstream you were. It's Archie Bunkerish. 30 years too late.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 29, 2007 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
His disagreeing with religion has nothing to do with his being wounded and in need of prayer. He is in need of prayer because he is unable to accept other homosexuals choices without lashing out at them and calling them anti-gay and the peole who accept McClurkin homophobes. The need to strike out at other homosexuals means he is deeply hurt. . That is not about religion just human compassion. His spirit is not at peace and he does need prayer. Perhaps, you do as well, the way you jumped on the post to oppose the message.
Believe it. It seems that you are attempting to limit the diversity of views by labels. If you call something progressive it can't include views that don't adhere to your beliefs and gay politics. Which sounds very narrow-minded. But then that is the what is going on here isn't it. This is how homosexuals force others to get in line with their politics..through haranging, harassing and being intolerant of views they disagree with.
I hope you are enlighten by being exposed to views that are different from yours.
Personally, I can't believe that people can't accept that there are homosexuals who choose prayer and faith as a means to manage their homosexual desires. There are also many men like Senator Craig and Gov MCGreevy who choose to live a married life. . It should disturb you that you have to call it 'homosexual' marriage rather than marriage. You see that is like saying dysfunctional family rather than family...it tells you something is wrong.
Homophobe is just hate language being spewed at people because they hate themselves and they want to vent their emotional pain and hurt on others in some kind of twisted way they belive that makes their suffering better. MCClurkin understands that homosexuals are really wounded souls in need of love and compassion.
I'll pray for you also.
October 29, 2007 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine if you'd said, "McClurkin understands that Christians are really wounded souls in need of love and compassion." Just imagine. It wouldn't go over well.
And, hey... let's start passing laws stopping Christians from marrying each other. You'd have to be fine with that. After all Christianity is a choice, it's just a behavior, and there's no reason to protect a behavior. Besides, Christians are just people with wounded psyches who are probably repressing homosexual desires. In fact, all this talk about Christians having the same rights as everyone else is just an attempt to push a Christian political agenda.
By the way, you've made some leaps about the sexual orientations of the people you're arguing with. Just something for you to think about.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 29, 2007 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not. Most sinners are wounded souls. Most people who are religious seek faith as a means to find comfort for the discontent they feel within.
Well neither Catholicism or Judaism allows marriage unless you convert to their faith.
No Christianity is a belief a faith, that is not a behavior.
Many do struggle with carnal desires as well as sloth, pride and greed.
Choosing a faith is a choice that all citizens have, just like all American citizens can choose marriage. Or they can remain single. Changing the concept of marriage and family to meet the desires of a few is just not in the best interest of children and families. Adult sexual desires cannot take precedence over the right of a child to be raised with a mother and father, in terms of what society promotes. If it happens, out of some misfortune or circumstance, that is bad enough. It should never be something that society strives for and projects as ideal for child rearing such that there are financial incentives and benefits offered. That type of setting does not benefit the needs of society which has to place first the best interest of children and society vs. adult sexual desires.
I doubt it but then that is the thing about behaviors, people never have to acknowledge they engage in them. They can claim to be anything which is all the more reason not to consider changing the culture and fabric of society. The desire could pass after a year or two and the individual could find that their lives are easily managed through faith and prayer without society having to turn itself upside down for a behavior folks are unwilling to claim. It is all so twisted which is why prayer helps.
October 29, 2007 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not one of your absolute statements about how children should be raised is defensible. Sorry.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 29, 2007 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The statements are defensible. You simply disagree. You're entitled to hold an opposing view Destor ....and without being called a bigot.
October 29, 2007 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finally, he should have thrown the preacher under the bus, not the whole gay-lesbian community and those that support them. He could have found a suitable replacement and hept the gospel hour rolling.
Who is throwing whom under the bus here?
The Obama haters are acting as if McClurkin is some sort of adviser and setting policy. It's unfortunate that McClurkin's said ignorant things, but how will this affect an Obama presidency?
How does McClurkin's singing affect Senator Obama's position on the issues of rights and justice for all people, including gays?
And why does it matter that McClurkin is doing this concert with Obama's campaign if he's not using that stage as a platform to spread homophobia?
McClurkin's there simply to entertain, and I bet there would be a lot of p/o'd (potential) Obama supporters if McClurkin had been booted out of the concert.
Instead, this controversy has forced Obama to restate his positions in favor of gay rights, but some people can never be satisfied, they want blood, they want heads rolling, they demand that Obama sacrifice support for its own sake. What purpose would it have served to fire this man? That point is lost on me.
I don't understand this controversy, especially with homophobia being so pervasive among Democrats and Republicans. But if this is what it takes for you to reject Obama, then you probably have other issues with him anyway.
If you're the type to forego Seinfeld to avoid Michael "Pitchfork In Your Ass" Richards, then by all means, forego Obama. But don't forget that Senator Clinton and John Edwards have also positioned themselves to deliver gays something less than equality.
So I would say, make sure you're rejecting the right guy before you endorse "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Clinton, "It's a choice" Richardson, or "my wife believes in gay marriage but I don't" Edwards.
October 29, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I promise not to be condescending, obnoxious and/or sarcastic.
It's a pet peeve, so please forgive or indulge me:
"Who is throwing whom under the bus here?"
It's "Who is throwing who." Whom is only used for indirect objects. The person being thrown under the bus is the direct object of the subject--the one doing the throwing. For example, Who does Barrack throw under the bus? Barrack throws gay people under the bus. Who throws gay people under the bus? Barrack throws gay people under the bus.
Michael Richards is an ironic choice for comparison. Would it be okay if Barrack hired Michael Richards to warm up the crowd? He was funny as Kramer, and he's not going to use the platform to advance his racist views. What about using Richard Wagner? He composed pretty music, and he won't use the platform to advance his racist views. What about Aaron McKinney and Russel Henderson? I heard they do a dead-on gay man impersonation, and as long as they are not promoting their own murderous inclinations, no foul.
Your suggestion that he would have alienated the gay-hating christian audience he was pandering to by swapping gospel singers is appalling. Good thing he wasn't addressing the KKK or neo-Nazis.
Maybe its the company you keep, and not just the lip service paid at the podium. When deciding who to support you need to weigh promises with the evidence. Barrack's sweet promises seem to fall apart when confronted with the evidence.
Of course, those who wish to advocate for Barrack are just defective and should be relegated to second class status and feel lucky for not being openly persecuted, since they are damned to hell anyway
Remember my promise not to be condescending, obnoxious and/or sarcastic? How does my promise stack up against my post (evidence)?
/c
In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.
November 20, 2007 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
cscs: Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
It's interesting to note that MSNBC has been airing a blurb this morning saying that Obama is planning to criticize Clinton more forcefully in the debate tomorrow. I guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow to see if he's able to pull it off. But I agree that if Obama isn't as strong as hoped, there seems to be a problem for Dems who are looking for a viable alterntive to Clinton. It's what I see as her hawkishness that worries me. Of course, everything could change once the actual voting begins.
Too bad Gore's not in it. Gore-Obama sounded just about perfect to me.
Edited to add: This issue has now reached CNN, where it's generating a lot of debate, and also the Huffington Post, where it's the first story on the home page, with the same big headline as at CNN, saying, "Reverend McClurkin At Obama Event: "God Delivered Me From Homosexuality" Oddly, the comments at the HP were apparently closed from the outset.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 29, 2007 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't they?
October 29, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
flxzips
October 30, 2007 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having tools is quite different from knowing what to do with the tools.
Hoppy in Sacramento
October 29, 2007 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor...
Obama is not touring with McClurkin.
McClurkin is a homosexual. Based on how you define anti-gay he is not anti-gay nor a bigot.
October 29, 2007 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is it, WRB? Is homosexuality genetic or a choice? I keep seeing your posts talking about it being a choice, and not something someone is born with.
In which case, according to your definition, McClurkin is not a homosexual. He has claimed to make the choice, after his supposed god "delivered" him from homosexuality, that he will no longer be homosexual.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Is est vicis muto probo.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
October 30, 2007 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes or no: do you believe that a gay person cannot be anti-gay?
~~~~~~~~~~~
Is est vicis muto probo.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
October 30, 2007 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is interesting is that except for Monica, which was admittedly stupid, there were no real Clinton scandals. What there was was a lot of made up stuff which the MSM echoed and which the far left having abandoned Clinton there was very little defense.
I am not Gay nor do I speak for Gays. However, your condescending view of Gays is hysterical. My friend who's sister is Gay and is activitly involved with both Lightspeed and Integrity, says there is a lot of anger in the Gay community directed at Obama.
Obama is no visionary. He is a non-Baby Boom politician who may or may not change the focus of politics that have been stuck in a rut since the late 1960s. However, so far he looks a lot like any Harvard graduate who runs for political office.
Personally I prefer Biden but he is not going anywhere. The top six Democrats are a huge improvement over both Bush and what would really satisfy the far left. Any of them should be able to beat any Republican candidate. However, so far Obama has not run a very impressive campaign. His handling of this issue does not speak to savy.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
October 30, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good Morning Daniel,
The Clinton administration is plague by scandals, whitewater, travelgate, monicagate, wagthedoggate,markrichgate, laniguaniergate, vncefostergate, genifflowersgate, juanitebroderickgate, hillaryhealthcaregate,NAFTAgate. Now these may not be literally scandals but they all are political controversies and tremendous political baggage.
Dying of laughter are you?. I see no condescencion in what is clearly the political reality of how the gay community has been Hillary's pawn with this manufactured 'outrage'. There is a clear double standard and it breaks along racial lines as well since Hilliary's 20 point lead has a lot to do with the black vote. Without it those numbers drop big and I think her political gamble is going to help Obama in the end.
About what? Please do not rehash McClurkin. As there should be just as much anger about Hillary if the gay political agenda is at the core. Heck the gay community did not even support Rev Sidden who had the best opportunity to bridge the gap.
Yes, he is a visionary as he is the only one who had the foresight to change the cynicism in politics and possess the political language to do so. and he is ahead of his time. He speaks the language that can bridge the divisive and polarized politics that we live with. No one else is doing that or can do it. Hillary is a classic example, she simply perpetuates and perfects it having watched it sustain the GOP. She trods the path that has already been made. Obama blazes new trails. Hillary basically believes the ends justify the means. She is out to win, not govern so that we can move ahead as a nation. She is willing to plan one faction off against another as long as it keeps her in a position of power. There will not be any progress for us as citizens. Whereas, Obama seeks to build consensus and move the nation forward with progressive policies. Obama believes that the government can work for it’s citizens and he is committed to doing that. Are you even aware of his record on enacted bills that are focused on substance? For instance:
For a freshman Senator in the minority party, (at the time) he has a decent record of getting his proposals enacted.While I think this is a fair criticism, I also believe that is not the most important quality to have in a President. Most folks who work in business, such as yourself, know that a person who interviews well, typically interviews a lot and more often times than not impressive interviews are not great employees/executives. So, as much as Obama may not be savvy on the campaign trail I am much more assured about the vision he has for America and how he has worked to achieve that and in particular how those skills will stand him in good stead as a President as he has the judgment and leadership ability to move us forward.
Yes, I know how well he campaigns may determine if he gets that chance, but I am willing to look beyond the campaign knowing that he will be a great President. When it comes to substance vs. spin Obama has it and that is what I want in the oval office. Not another neo-con, warmongering, equivocating power mad virago Who will tell us what she believes we need to hear and instead of the tag line ‘I’m the decider” for the next 4 years we will hear. “I’m your girl!”
October 30, 2007 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel, looks like Obama answered this assertion you made:
'Obama can't afford to alienate Black supporters but can alienate Gays."
October 30, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thera P,
You may wish to know,that the most knowledgable candidate when it comes to the constitution is Barack Obama. He spent 10 years at the Univ of Chicago teaching Constitutional Law and is considered nationally to be well respected constitutional law scholar. The Univer of Chicago is one of the most rigourous institution in the nation when it comes to constitutional law it is ranked third in the country.
November 2, 2007 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey workerbee-/:-)
You're right, it is still very early yet. Lot's can happen in a year's time. For one thing, the MSM isn't going to let Hillary run away w/the election this early...they want a horse race...that'll keep the ratings/readers/viewers numbers ($$$) up. If they have to, the MSM will throw some dirt Hillary's way as a way of evening things up a little--even if they have to make something out of nothing--look at that planted question fiasco as an example.
Also, I just watched the speech Obama gave Saturday night in Iowa--C-Span replayed it and I think that was the best speech I've heard from him yet. He was on fire! Good for him. I believe his heart is in the right place. He's not going down without a fight.
That being said, I believe John Edwards is the most qualified, best prepared & sharpest candidate in the field. Most recently, I watched his Nov. 7th stop in New Hampshire...and there's not a doubt in my mind that Edwards is what this country needs right now.
But I do get so damn'd aggravated w/the MSM acting as if this is a 2 candidate race (Hilliary & Barack) all the time...it's infuriating. Edwards clearly has the (much) better platform, yet one hardly ever hears about him. He doesn't get nearly the coverage H & B get...which is pretty frickn' disgusting, imo.
Edwards get's it & he knows what needs to done to get this ailing country back on her feet.
C ya, workerbee-& stay awesome!
/:-)
Peace.
November 12, 2007 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
...is what I think.
/;-)
November 12, 2007 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink