Liberal Gay-Bashers

ABC has another article the indites Obama for tiptoeing around the subject of gays -- even ignoring again, his minister's hateful vitriol against homosexuals.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/abc-news-sunlen.html

Kenny I am a gay man...and seen all the candidates speak in very personal spaces (I live in NH).

All of the candidates are pro-gay. Obama is a very smart educated guy and knows and has said several occasions listing gays first...he fights against oppression.

...and so does McCain but neither of them want to bring it up on the campaign trail because of all the hate and manipulation that it brigns with it.

I for one am glad they don't open that debate...but I know they understand what has happened with suicide and gay youth...they understand that people have been born with something that has nothing to do with their worth and have been pushed to the sides (and out) of society.

This is an issue with these candidates...we don't have to worry about.

Obama never gets involved in controversial issues. You'll never hear him take a stand on gay marriage. He's such a twerp! He only says what he's been told to say.

dl

I'd like to see a couple of real examples.

...and Matthew, Obama has expressed support for the gay community many times...on many issues...and when it counts...he consistently refers to the population as being oppressed...and many times lists them as being the first group in the list to be oppressed because they are still the most accepted for people to do so. He gets (and so does John and Hillary for that matter) that people are born that way and people who want to take them down for that are one of the dark spots in the world still.

Trust me I would not be such a fervent supporter if that were not the case.

Matthew Shepard. The time when Conservative America stood up and basically said, "he had it coming to him." But the Clintons and the rest of the world pushed back and said, "no human being regardless of sexual orientation deserved this."

Obama said he would do anything for a vote.

That he has done.

Runs the raunchiest campaign ever in this country. Gets the Obama youth to do a lot of the dirty work, and anyone else who will.

He will use any group to get a vote. He will only remember them later on if it is something his church beleives in. Evident by his past voting record.

That is the Obama way!

All of this brings back scary and horrifying memories of Matthew Sheppard.

Is it even possible to keep all of the people happy all of the time? It's not possible..it is just not. Human rights and individual rights have been fought for within our country's history right? Which means it is a FIGHT. Should it be? No. But it is. I think that gays and lesbians should be allowed the same rights as all of us, but how many disagree with me? What good would it do for any Democrat to publicly endorse gay marriage if the majority of the voters still have these reservations? It would not do any good- the candidate would never make it past the primaries, not because they are wrong in their thinking but because people are still afraid of what they do not know. What good would it do? That candidate would never be in a position of power to help foster gay rights at all. Yes, it is discrimination..yes it is sad that sometimes you can't have what is rightfully yours right away, but with the way America discriminates against people that supposedly have Equal rights( behind the anonymity of a voters booth)this is the way things are today.It is unfortunate but the fight will continue and one day it will be changed. Until then the best thing to do , in my opinion is to vote for the people that best represent at least the beginning of equal rights ( and not just in sound bytes in the last year but throughout their lives).

As a gay man against Obama I firmly believe that he has no need for homosexuals except for political reasons. I am convinced that Obama zombies will disagree, but then again if look at his "like family" associates it's hard to believe any part of his social agenda.

I'd rather have it honestly... than behind closed doors, but yeah it would be different if a republican said it because of the parties policies.

It is the same issue that Obama addressed in the race issue ...just it is a smaller demographic that gets hurt (although that may be arguable). Unfortunately for many their faith has made it seem like gays are an abomination and even if they fight to accept them it is an uphill fight after years of acceptance (and continueing acceptance) to denigrate them as "lower than regular every day humans" and worthy of ridicule and violence.

Hopefully that is changing... thank you liberals who know that God's number one issue is "Try to be happy and try not to hurt other people."

cindyct,
Last I read, homosexuals account for 1-2 percent of the population. That is not a "large group". It doesn't make offensive labeling any less wrong but lets keep some honest perspective here.

Anyway, what if Obama, while not expressing it directly, doesn't want affiliation with homosexuals and is not going to actively promote a pro-homosexual agenda? Personally, if that is the case, which I would support, fine, but I do agree that there is no place allowing or using offensive labels and language.

Gays are people!!! we have stop labeling people. They have every right to exit, and every right to vote. it is sad that "some" candidates are alienating this large group of VERY passionate voters.

If everyone is going to get worked up over this, then it should be equally offensive regardless of the source. That liberals want to overlook their own suggests that the insults are not offensive unless they can tie it some political gain in beating up on an opponent.

But be careful how far you want to straitjacket conversation. Short of the insults, diversity of views has to be allowed and acceptable. For example, if I say I oppose homosexual marriage, that is a legitimate position. There is nothing insulting about it.