Antigay Obama Supporter McClurkin: "God Delivered Me From Homosexuality"
The controversy over Obama supporter and antigay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin just won't go away. The latest: McClurkin tried his hand at -- ahem -- a bit of damage control, and the result was the following:
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."
Hmmm, somehow we don't think this will improve matters. More from John Aravosis, who's led the assault on Obama over this.
Comments (120)
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 1:31 PM:Are you claiming that God did NOT deliver McClurkin from homosexuality?
destor23 wrote on October 29, 2007 1:33 PM:It's just proof that Oprah's candidate doesn't have the brains or guts for the job. He shouldn't even get an appointed post in the next Democratic administration, frankly.
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 1:37 PM:Look, don't get me wrong, what the guy is saying is ludicrous, but I think you should cut people who were sexually abused as children some slack and not judge them so harshly automatically, even when they have dumb views. I also think that we should be reaching out to black evangelicals. Obviously their views on homosexuality are going to have absolutely no sway over the Democratic party, and we should try to change their minds on the topic, not just automatically attack them. Aravosis may actually be doing Obama a big favor by trying to make a mountain out of this molehill.
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 1:40 PM:Is antigay really the right word? I think he's more just profoundly wrong about homosexuality than antigay.
Tony wrote on October 29, 2007 1:42 PM:Well, Jack D, it's clear God has yet to deliver McClurkin from stupidity or delusion. In case the offensiveness of the comment eludes you, being gay is not something to be "delivered from" like leprosy. If you buy into the Leviticus notion, then I trust you also buy into all the other prohibitions in Leviticus -otherwise, you're trying to blame God for your hatred and that can't sit well with him.
So, it is "dumb" AND "profoundly wrong" to think that God delivered McClurkin from homosexuality?
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 1:46 PM:P.S. to Tony: I don't hate anyone -- but homosexual behavior is certainly a sin in the Bible -- it would be funny if Democrats lost the African-American vote because of this issue.
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 1:46 PM:HRC's campaign is actively pushing this story, all the while hoping that no one takes a look at just who's in her campaign. See Harold Mayberry (minister in Oakland who holds similar views on homosexuality--quoted on her website on civil rights). See the $10,000 per month campaign consultant in South Carolina and two other South Carolina endorsers (all of which are state legislators).
This man has his view, however many of us may think it is misguided. But they are HIS VIEWS. Obama is on record about his disagreement with his views, and Obama's record with LGBT issues is better than most Democratic candidates. So long as Obama is not embracing and/or espousing his views, I don't see what the issue is here (vis-a-vis Obama's campaign). And like I said, if you are going to get all exercised about a gospel singer performing at a gospel concert, I'd like to hear about your outrage with HRC's South Carolina consultant and other endorsers.
Tony wrote on October 29, 2007 1:51 PM:Jack D - homosexuality is a "sin" grouped into comparable sins like eating shellfish, working on the sabbath (both punishable by stoning) SO...I take it then you strictly follow Leviticus? Do you embrace the "slaves follow your masters" demand? Or is God's word more like the Hometown Buffet where you pick and choose?
Keith wrote on October 29, 2007 1:52 PM:Greg:
If you are going to quote Aravosis, you need to mention that a lot of what's he's saying is driving by a quiet bigotry: namely that the only appeal McClurkin has in the African-American community is his views on homosexuality. Never mind that he's one of the most popular gospel singers in the country, who performed at (G-d forbid) a gospel concert.
Here's a great comment from Aravosis:
"this pattern of embracing gay-bashers and wife-beaters is starting to suggest that perhaps Obama is trying to curry favor within his own community at the expense of lots of other communities, and worse, his soul."
And Greg, out of fairness, what say you about HRC's endorsers in South Carolina? Don't you think that's relevant, in light of her campaign actively pushing this story? (See Washington Post article last week:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502421_2.html?wpisrc=newsletter
I find all the pandering to religion by all the candidates to be disgusting. This has certainly soured me to Obama, and if, as Jake suggests, the "Democrats lost the African-American vote because of this issue" it would be a pretty ugly reflection on the african american vote.
as much as homophobia is a persistent problem in this country, we will see a gay president long before we see an atheist president - or even a president who doesn't see the need to pander to the superstition and ignorance promoted by organized religion.
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 2:00 PM:Sigh.
That's right, it didn't matter what his view were, because he was just going to SING.
That's right, Obama's not giving him a platform, just inviting him to an event.
And, finally, you don't mention "dialogue" in action -- how Obama's white gay minister spoke before most people arrived, and how Obama himself didn't say anything except to say that this was among his and Michelle's favorite music.
Embrace the Change (if you can find it)!
Glenn wrote on October 29, 2007 2:01 PM:Keith, are you really saying you don't see a difference between HRC getting endorsed by a homophobe, and Obama organizing a series of concerts featuring a homophobe?
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 2:01 PM:If he truly believes that G-d cured him of his homosexuality, who are we to contradict him? I mean, if he believes that a man was G-d incarnate, was killed and rose from the dead, is it so far fetched that he believes that same G-d can cure of him homosexuality?** You can and SHOULD disagree with him, but to call his views anti-gay because you disagree is to try impose your belief over his belief.
**Setting aside the question of whether homosexuality can be cured, of course.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 2:02 PM:Tony:
I don't strictly follow Leviticus because the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross was sufficient (there are no shellfish mentioned in Matt. 5:28 or Acts 15:29) YMMV.
David:
According to Washington Post-ABC News national surveys this year, 43 percent of white Democrats support homosexual marriage, compared to only 22 percent of blacks. Around half of blacks, 52 percent, don't support civil unions or homosexual, compared to only 26 percent of whites.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 2:03 PM:Thank you, Anonymous.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 2:07 PM:Tony:
In addition, it's not up to me -- if God wants to make shellfish O.K., but not sexual immorality, who am I to argue?
Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay. Don't call me a homophobe, because I love everybody -- let me tell you something, the grace of God is given to all men -- for God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
AJ wrote on October 29, 2007 2:10 PM:Big problem for Obama is that one part of his base, young white liberals support gay rights, not just gays.
According to Pew 52% of Americans under 40 believe "society should accept homosexuality." What percent of young Obamites do you think believe that?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_10/012351.php
Reality wrote on October 29, 2007 2:11 PM:All of this pandering to gays is disgusting. It's ever bit as pathetic as the right wing's pandering to religious types.
Maybe this guy's religious belief did make him do something, maybe it didn't. Maybe he's tapping toes in a stall somewhere. Why does it matter?
What's with this expecting everyone around you to agree on 100% of everything 100% of the time? People have different opinions on things. It's a fact. Big tent, ya know?
If Dems are waiting for everyone to cheerlead gays and gay marriage, they're wasting everyone's time.
If Dems try to make it a litmus test for being a 'correct' person, they're going to lose. Big.
Keith wrote on October 29, 2007 2:12 PM:it would be a pretty ugly reflection on the african american vote.
Here's the point that is really grating on my nerves: the bigotry that is pushing this stupid story. For all of this to be relevant to Obama's campaign, one has to believe two things (i) that Obama is a cynical politican who only pays lip service to LGBT issues and believes that African Americans are bigots and (ii) that McClurkin's SOLE appeal in the African-American community is his bigoted views.
It can't possibly be that African-Americans who like gospel music, like Donnie McClurkin for his singing. No, it's his views on homosexuality. Why? Because African-Americans are homophobic and if you want our vote, you'd damn well better be homophobic too.
The reality is that gay rights isn't the most pressing concern in the black community. Things like racism, poverty, lack of education, children born out of wedlock, crime come to mind. But I digress....
And I'm not defending McClurkin's views (which I disagree with), but making sure everyone knows that the underlying issue driving this is another form of bigotry.
Keith wrote on October 29, 2007 2:16 PM:Keith, are you really saying you don't see a difference between HRC getting endorsed by a homophobe, and Obama organizing a series of concerts featuring a homophobe?
Homophobe state legislators (who voted against a Hate Crime bill in South Carolina) and a Gospel singer singing gospel songs. Hmmm....
My point isn't that I'm saying one is better or worse than the other. I'm saying (as I spelled out in my last post), all of this presumes that Obama and HRC are trying to appeal to African-American voters through BIGOTRY. Which, in and of itself, is a form of bigotry. Just because gay rights are the most important issue to homosexuals, doesn't mean that it is for every other group. That's the problem with identity politics, one can't see beyond your own issue. Do I think McClurkin's views are wrong, absolutely. Do I think Obama had him perform at a gospel concert because of those views, absolutely not. To suggest otherwise, is irresponsible and insulting (as an African-American).
Another Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 2:16 PM:Jake D's Bible: Torture (err, ummm, 'enhance interrogation techniques') good. Homosexuality evil.
Thank God(!) that the U.S. is becoming less religious.
Another Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 2:19 PM:I have mixed feelings about the whole issue and how Obama handled this, but I do know that progressives need to figure out that Democrats need the support of African-Americans, and religious people, and gay people to win.
Otherwise, we'll all be marching behind President Rudy during the invasion of Iran.
Bloix wrote on October 29, 2007 2:20 PM:With this stuff plus his attack on Clinton over Social Security, he's lost me. We've been waiting for him to show us where he stands for months and now we know - he's a Karl Rove Republican.
kozmik wrote on October 29, 2007 2:22 PM:So, a singer who has issues with gays supports Obama, and that's somehow Obama's fault?
Hello? Talk about a non-issue. Could people be any more hysterical and short sighted? This must be a Republican effort to split the idiot vote.
Here's a bit of reality for consideration:
1) The black community is generally anti-gay. That's the same black community Hillary or any Dem candidate courts. Get real.
2) While the black community is generally anti-gay, they're very pro civil rights, and haven't actually ever done anything or passed legislation to harm the gay community. Historically, gays have benefited tremendously from black civil rights.
3) The black community is really the least of gay's problems. The majority of white, latin, asian, other Americans are against gay marriage at the federal level. The worst thing that will come about from the black community's anti-gay tenancies, whether Obama or Hillary are elected, is that gay marriage won't happen in the next presidential term. Which wouldn't happen anyways! Civil unions are happening at the state level.
4) Trying to pit one mostly powerless minority against another must be making white, conservative, Republicans very happy.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 2:25 PM:"This must be a Republican effort to split the idiot vote."
Are you calling Hillary a Republican or African-American voters idiots (I'm not sure which one is worse)?
Brian wrote on October 29, 2007 2:28 PM:This is an issue where I differ from many progressives - and I may get flamed for this, but...
(Note: This is all IMHO, take it or leave it)
I am pro gay rights, and I don't think *most* gays are gay out of choice. But, I have had gay friends who said there are a small percentage who are gay just because they want to be in the 'in' crowd or push boundaries. For these few I personally do not approve of their choice, and I have had gay friends who agree with me on this matter.
But, I am also a religious progressive. I don't think it is natural for men or women to be gay from a physiological perspective and if someone who is gay can go straight without being unhappy than I think that is great. If you think God had a hand in the conversion than so be it.
I also do NOT think that I or other religious people should aggressively go out and try to 'convert' gays to be straight. We should support those who want to try or have self-doubts, but no more than that. But, I also think it is fine for religious groups to speak out against 'loose' sexual mores by both straight and gay; they can point to historical, physiological, as well as religious reasons why such behavior can be self-destructive.
I also think progressives and dems need to support gay rights as an individual freedom personal liberties issue, but avoid being perceived as celebrating the 'gay lifestyle'. That is if they ever want to be the majority party for any extended period of time. A majority of American's, myself included, don't find members of the same sex sexually attractive and the concept of celebrating that lifestyle is a turn off.
Flame away...
Well, hell, I'LL say it: It IS "dumb" AND "profoundly wrong" to think that God delivered McClurkin (or anybody) from homosexuality?
Superstition. Invisible cloud being.
illogic wrote on October 29, 2007 2:30 PM:Anyone else who seizes on the McClurkin issue are either would-be Clitonistas or woefully uninformed about Christian dogma. Vitually ALL mainstream Christians (Evangelicals, Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc.) are taught that homosexual acts are intrinsically sinful and that homosexual desire can be permanently repressed (cured) through prayer and counselling. The idea that this meme is a problem specific to McClurkin or black churches is ridiculous. The fact that so many "progressives" give credence to this nasty bit of agitprop is downright scary!
I don't think it is wise for the Dems to respond to the Republican litmus test on homosexuality with their own litmus test on homosexuality. There's so much more at stake here and really any of the Democratic candidates could be reasonably expected to better worlds better on homosexual issues than any Republican. It's not that different from being one of about six or seven different parts of the Democratic coalition.
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 2:33 PM:Don't forget that Bill Clinton advised John Kerry to throw gays under the bus in 2004 by endorsing some of the state anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments (which Kerry correctly and immediately insisted he would NOT do).
Tell me that isn't 1,000,000x worse than having a popular black gospel singer who has some crazy views about homosexuality.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 2:35 PM:Thanks, MsInformed -- I knew I could count on you : )
Lilly wrote on October 29, 2007 2:36 PM:Keith, you have really summed up what I typed in this box and just deleted. The whole thing is rather disgusting.
It just seems to me that this fellow's personal experiences and sexuality (and his opinions about both) are wholly irrelevent to Obama's views and opinions.
Not everyone is going to be on the same page on every issue. Apparently, McClurkin is on a slightly different page than Obama on homosexuality. *shrug* That doesn't negate the fact that he's a popular gospel singer who Obama's supporters mnight enjoy hearing in concert. He's there to sing.
My personal opinion about McClurkin is that he is a homosexual who, through his faith, has chosen to deny his natural sexuality and has replaced it with another. McClurkin's personal opinion is that God has helped him to be no longer gay. He and I are obviously not going to see eye to eye on it, but he certainly doesn't seem like a gay basher and he doesn't advocate hatred of homosexuals.
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 2:36 PM:Look, the guy was sexually abused as a child. I think you should forgive him for having some silly views. That sort of thing can really screw people up in the head.
horizonr wrote on October 29, 2007 2:42 PM:Of course, you just had to check in with Avarosis, didn't you? Couldn't possibly leave him out, could you? Could you?
MsInformed wrote on October 29, 2007 2:42 PM:Reality check: percentage of homosexuals in the human population roughly the same as percentage of left-hand dominate humans. It's a naturally occurring mutation. Of course they used to try to punish left-handers out of being southpaws too. (Stupidly)
P.s. Fuck you Jake. Stooopid troll. Go to Jesus.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 2:42 PM:Most homosexuals ARE sexually abused as children or otherwise raised improperly.
Lookingforhome wrote on October 29, 2007 2:43 PM:Reality: What 'gets on my nerves' is that to criticize Obama's choices here, or agree with those who feel this is a big issue (gays, supporters of gay rights, many Dems, etc.) one gets accused of being a bigot.
Donnie McClurkin wasn't just a singer when he joined this bill and he didn't just perform songs when he took the stage. Yes he was defending himself (which is obviously fine) but he once again stated as fact that Homosexuality is a choice, that he was 'saved' from it by God, and that he shouldn't be accused of being a bigot when he himself has 'suffered' from the same thing (i.e. homosexual thoughts).
He said all this in front of an audience that according to the polls (as with many voting African Americans in SC) vastly agree with him...on the points that homosexuality is a choice AND a sin. Conversely, if the Obama campaign had decided to remove him from the bill -- muzzle him if you will -- it would have been a very risky political move. These are all facts, and the Obama campaign's judgement and final decisions in creating this event this way are all very reasonable to criticize, without any bigotry necessarily playing a role.
I am neither gay nor a gay activist, nor a believer in the dogmatic interpretation of the bible that calls homosexuality sinful or a perversion. I'm simply a progressive Democrat that (like many in my party) thinks that McClurkin and those the believe like him are morally wrong and inherently opposed to a core belief in the equal treatment of all human beings that is fundamental to the party.
Doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to speak his beliefs, doesn't mean Obama shouldn't book him for a concert for black evangelicals -- BUT to say that both those things can happen but can't be criticized by anyone other than a bigot is absurd. Candidates make choices, and the Obama team made this one. They associated themselves very publicly with a person whose views (however wrapped in religious belief) are offensive to a large percentage of the electorate. It's fair for people to criticize that, and no matter how sure you are (or how much you want others to believe it) it is not inherently bigoted.
And just so it's out there -- religion and cultural tradition are no excuse for the perpetuation of destructive stereotypes or hatred of any kind. Our society continues to have very serious issues that it fails to address because the mere mention of them risks irresponsible accusations of bigotry and racism. Please think about your accusations here, and consider whether they really are fact-based and part of a constructive dialogue.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 2:44 PM:Don't worry, MsInformed -- I don't hate you.
kozmik wrote on October 29, 2007 2:45 PM:btw, make a list of the top 10 or top 100 performers of all time, or any ethnicity, including many of the soul/disco gay anthems, and most of the performers are at least mildly anti-gay, including some other closeted performers.
But unlike conservative white anti-gay culture, black culture, and certainly not black musicians, aren't responsible for any legislation against gays. In fact, being very pro civil rights, they're the last of gay's worries.
By comparison Country Western is almost 100% militantly anti-gay and very much preaching a macho, conservative, highly homophobic world view. Most other mainstream entertainers are deliberately heterosexually branded across the spectrum. Most of American culture is. They simply reflect that.
For a little reality check, Liberace never came put despite having HIV, and Elton John only came out in the mid 80's. Luther Vandross never came out to his death in 2005.
Black icons ranging from Cornell West to Dave Chappelle are anti discrimination, and things are changing, but the idea we suddenly have a litmus test for gay tolerance is a bit absurd.
Is anyone seriously calling for a ban of all black celebs or all homophobic musicians?
Get real people.
Lilly wrote on October 29, 2007 2:46 PM:Jake D. at 2:42 PM:
Your assertion is absurd. I think you meant "strippers," not "homosexuals."
(;
But, to be serious, you shouldn't make such statements unless you're prepared to back them up with proof. Proof that I'm quite sure you will be unable to provide, as it does not exist.
POed Lib wrote on October 29, 2007 2:46 PM:Hey Jake:
I see that you're a Christian wack. Why do you follow a prophet who was clearly a faggot? I mean, spending all of his time with 12 guys, getting foot massages but nothing else from prostitutes, and so forth.
Amazing to me. Jesus was a faggot, and you run down gays.
Dennis wrote on October 29, 2007 2:48 PM:Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 2:07 PM: Tony:In addition, it's not up to me -- if God wants to make shellfish O.K., but not sexual immorality, who am I to argue?"
Jake, as the father of five children, two of whom are homosexual, I regret that I cannot tell you face to face, you don't know what in the hell you are talking about.
All you are doing is echoing the religious conservative views that you were brought up to believe - which were wrong, then, and are wrong now.
The bible isn't the "innerant word of god", rather it became "so" (for political reasons as well as religious ones) over a period of centuries.
To use it as some measure of understanding human sexuality is worthless (unless it's to understand that sex can be such an obsession that one will kill for it - like David had the husband of Bathsheba, Uriah, put in the front lines of battle knowing that he would likely be killed there).
And just as Paul was wrong about women keeping silent in the church, he was wrong also about homosexuals.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
kozmik:
Faith Hill is "preaching a macho, conservative, highly homophobic world view"? I thought she was just upset about other women grabbing her husband's crotch on stage.
kozmik wrote on October 29, 2007 2:52 PM:Speaking of idiots....
Quote: "Are you calling Hillary a Republican or African-American voters idiots (I'm not sure which one is worse)?" ~ Jake D.
Obviously Republicans want minorities in the Dem party to fight amongst themselves and split. Duh.
Obviously Hillary would like to hurt Obama by attempting to play on gay paranoia about blacks. Which, on that issue, alligns her interests with Republicans.
Obviously every group of people contain some idiots who are susceptible to such manipulation.
And obviously your question is an idiotic straw man and troll.
Glenn wrote on October 29, 2007 2:55 PM:Do I think Obama had him perform at a gospel concert because of those views, absolutely not. To suggest otherwise, is irresponsible and insulting (as an African-American).
But he DIDN'T just "perform at a gospel concert" -- didn't you read the story? He used the platform that Obama gave him to preach his anti-gay message. And it was perfectly predictable that he would do so, and Obama still gave him that platform. Do I think Obama had him perform because he's anti-gay? No, I do not. Do I think that Obama was too cowardly to stand up and remove him? Yes, absolutely.
Reality wrote on October 29, 2007 2:56 PM:Our society continues to have very serious issues that it fails to address because the mere mention of them risks irresponsible accusations of bigotry and racism.
=================
Well, yeah. That's what I meant.
People have different opinions. The pants wetters over at Daily Kos and Americablog insist everyone has to be identical.
Anyone that dares to step out of line gets the knife.
AJM wrote on October 29, 2007 2:57 PM:This is about Obama's willingness to feature a bigot -- in this case a bigot about homosexuality, not about race.
Everybody whining that McClurkin is just singing needs to note that he took time to try and justify his view that gays should stop being gay. McClurken used the platform Obama gave him. Knowing people scarred by past abuse and by religious doctrine we need not judge cclurken but we cannot ignore the fact that showcasing him implies that his views are acceptable (don't argue unless you are willing to say that headlining a bigot about race in that position would be acceptable if the music was good) and does damage to the society. The homophobia and denial about gay sex in the African American community which Obama has done good work in combatting has lead to many unnecessary deaths from AIDS.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 2:57 PM:Lilly -- here you go: http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102256512.html
kozmik wrote on October 29, 2007 2:59 PM:btw, historically the black community has been the leading advocate of civil rights. the gay community has benefitted tremendously from the work of the black community.
And the main reason we openly discuss the black community's generally anti-gay tenancies, is because the black community has prominent intellectuals and leaders who will admit this.
But let's make a realistic comparison with other ethnic groups in America.
Hispanics are far more homophobic. Asians are very homophobic. Conservative whites are very homophobic, and moderate whites are mildly homophobic. Margret Cho is the only asian celeb i can think of off the top of my head who is openly pro-gay, and she plays to a small coastal/urban audience. I can't think of any Hispanic celeb who is pro-gay.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 2:59 PM:Dennis:
How are the other three children doing?
kozmik wrote on October 29, 2007 3:03 PM:The vast majority of American entertainers are publicly homophobic. Country Western for example is almost 100% homophobic, white, conservative.
The Dixie Chicks for example are popular with the non-country demographic. They're probably the only "Country" album most of their recent fans own. Tehy're no longer popular with the Country music demographic who consume the vast majority of Country music sold.
So while they're a County act, they're totally atypical.
MsInformed wrote on October 29, 2007 3:03 PM:Speaking of Dave Chappelle: Remember the failed comedy sketch, "Haters In Time"? I wanna to go back in time ...so I can hate on Jake D. even before I knew he posted as such an ass-pimple troll.
It's as possible as the existence of an invisible cloud being that actually cares about the sexual predilection of individuals within the human animal population.
I'm just sayin....
Lookingforhome wrote on October 29, 2007 3:04 PM:Thanks Reality, that's all I meant as well. I don't think our party should have absolute litmus tests, and I don't think any of us benefit from vitriolic name calling. These are serious issues and we should be discussing them openly -- more likely to happen without the labelling.
Kozmik - You have to admit the line "Is anyone seriously calling for a ban of all black celebs or all homophobic musicians?" is a pretty big strawman too!
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 3:05 PM:And, I still love you, and will be praying for you, MsInformed.
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 3:07 PM:He said all this in front of an audience that according to the polls (as with many voting African Americans in SC) vastly agree with him...on the points that homosexuality is a choice AND a sin.
It is perfectly within your rights to critize Mr. McClurkin because you disagree with his views on homosexuality. What you can't do, and is irresponsible to do, is suggest that the only reason he was invited was because of those views--and citing polls to that effect doesn't justify or excuse holding that belief. The reality is that gay rights isn't high on the issues most African-Americans find important:
According to our internal post-election polling, health care, education, Iraq, the minimum wage, and the economy/jobs topped the list of issues that Black voters said most guided their vote. From wages and the economy to Iraq, Republicans were not on the same side of the issues as the broader African American community. In the summer of 2006, a 61 percent majority of African Americans wanted an immediate removal of all troops from Iraq. Consequently, Republicans were not well positioned to pick up African American votes.
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/0703/brazilebelcher.php
I just wish people would stop for one minute and think before they start pushing this bullsh*t. Not all voters champion the same issues. Doesn't mean one group's issue unimportant versus another's issue; it just means that not everyone is going to place the same significance on the same issue.
Lilly wrote on October 29, 2007 3:11 PM:Oh Jake, Jake, Jake, where to begin?
1. I cannot read the study, only the abstract. Fail.
2. The fact that the study was of 500 HIV positive homosexual men and 500 HIV positive bisexual men seems liek a red flag to me. What does HIV have to do with this? Was this study designed to pull a large sample of promiscuous men, and those doing the study thought that they'd get more promiscuous men if they selected HIV positives? I'm confused about that data piece and would be interested in reading the study to figure out the reaosning behind that sample.
3. The abstract states that: "RESULTS: In a strictly homosexual population, a prolonged or total father-figure absence background before their 7 years of age, resulted statistically significant, likewise the occurrence of a sexual abuse episode in early infancy." Can you define "statistically significant? In your opinion, does that phrase translate as "most" of the sample? Given your earlier statement, I assume that would be your translation.
RobbyLove wrote on October 29, 2007 3:12 PM:MsInformed:
I'm a Christian Democrat. Despite what the Republicans, the media, and others would have you think, there are many Democrats who know God. I know God. I know He exists, just as surely as you know your family exists.
POed Lib:
Jesus surrounded himself with many people who were considered the undesirables (prostitutes, tax collectors, etc) because those were the ones who needed saving. He did not come to cure the healthy, he came to cure the sick (sinners). I'm sorry that you are so misinformed.
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 3:12 PM:Lookingforhome
No, it's not a straw man at all. Get real.
Obama didn't ask the performer to speak out against gays. He asked him to sing a popular song. That's all. But when he had the mic, and abused it, and gushed about his own personal sexual baggage. The performer is himself trying to resolve his own sexuality! That guy's personal baggage is hardly Obama's responsibility or now a plank in his campaign.
For a little perspective, James Brown is homophobic too. If he was asked to perform, and said some crazy shit, would the candidate be responsible for it? Of course not, because he's there as a musical act, not a policy advocate.
People need to show some common fricking sense.
kozmik wrote on October 29, 2007 3:14 PM:btw, jake.D is probably a SPAM bot, or just a real wingnut in his mom's basement. Either way, the intent is to troll.
Keith wrote on October 29, 2007 3:14 PM:Glenn:
But he DIDN'T just "perform at a gospel concert" -- didn't you read the story?
You think maybe all the hysteria surrounding him performing gospel songs at a gospel concert had something to do with it? Maybe the protesters outside the venue? Maybe the mail he's received from gay rights supporters? I feel pretty confident that he's NEVER made such statements during a concert before.
From my reading of the article, it sounds like he felt he needed to make them because he felt like he was being wrongly maligned in the press. The brother has the right to defend himself--whether or not your or I agree with his views (on homosexuality).
Dood wrote on October 29, 2007 3:19 PM:'Homophobic' is one of the most asinine terms to ever be invented.
"Hey, you don't agree with me, so you're obviously suffering from a phobia."
Phobia pertains to a irrational, persistent fear. Not a disagreement of opinion.
John Aravosis is one of the most irresponsible bloggers anywhere with the way he throws accusations around. Kos is just as bad.
They are just like bible thumpers. Pompous and hateful. No difference at all.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 3:19 PM:Lilly:
"Most" means at least 50% + 1.
"Proof" means anything serving as such evidence.
See you around -- I'm busy praying for MsInformed.
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 3:21 PM:Speaking of minorities -- thank The Flying Spaghetti Monster that Jake is from a warped little minority
Dr. Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 3:24 PM:Jake D Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 2:57 PM:
Lilly -- here you go: http://...
Good "scientific" evidence Jake. An obscure meeting abstract, written by researchers, who, between the two of them, have never had a single peer-reviewed article published in the biomedical literature.
At least you know how to use teh google.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 3:24 PM:Last I checked, something like 89% of Americans professed to be Christians -- I have my doubts -- but, that's hardly a "little minority".
Lilly wrote on October 29, 2007 3:25 PM:Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 3:19 PM:
Lilly:
"Most" means at least 50% + 1.
"Proof" means anything serving as such evidence.
Precisely, Jake! The study you sent me to did not state the "statistically significant" number. I believe you've misread the abstract of that study, as it does not offer any evidence that "Most homosexuals ARE sexually abused as children or otherwise raised improperly" as you proclaimed. The study only states that the occurance was "statistically significant" in that sample, but doesn't define what that means. If you're reading the 90% or 87% number in that abstract, your reading comprehension is poor, as those numbers refer to the subgroup of those who had been sexually abused in the sample. 90% of those abused reported that they felt responsible. Not 90% of the sample.
As I said before, Fail.
the lord jesus wrote on October 29, 2007 3:28 PM:Jake, pride is a deadly sin, you condescending schmuck. you take my name in vain, every day and every night. you know this in your heart.
AW wrote on October 29, 2007 3:28 PM:If you believe, as a matter of personal religious faith, that sexual activity between people of the same sex is against the law of God, does that automatically make you "anti-gay" or "homophobic" or a "bigot"?
Does the answer depend on the way in which you express that belief, or how (if at all) you choose to act upon it?
Greg's posts on the McClurkin controversy seem to suggest that expressing the personal view that homosexuality is against God's law and that it is possible through prayer to overcome same-sex desires is in itself tantamount to being "against" or "fearing" gay people. I do not believe that to be true.
All of the leading democratic candidates, including Obama, Edwards and Clinton, oppose same-sex marriage for reasons of personal religious faith. On that point, a majority of Americans (and an overwhelming majority of people in the rest of the world) agree. Are they also "antigay" "bigots"? I don't think so.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 3:31 PM:Lilly and Dr. Anonymous:
I have provided a link that clearly identifies the proof -- Lilly OTOH claimed "I'm quite sure you will be unable to [link to such proof], as it does not exist" -- it's not my fault if you can't find the entire article in English.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 3:33 PM:AW:
I guess here, at TPM, they are.
Lilly wrote on October 29, 2007 3:35 PM:Jake D.:
What I am saying is that you have misread that abstract. There is nothing in it that supports your claim.
Lilly:
I didn't misread the actual article -- look, I'm not the only one who thinks homosexuals can be cured -- Bush’s current Surgeon General nominee, Dr. James Holsinger, even founded a church that “ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian” and “opposed a decision to allow a practicing lesbian to be an associate pastor” in the United Methodist Church. In 1991, Dr. Holsinger also authored a graphic paper arguing that homosexual behavior is “intuitively” unnatural and can lead to “lacerations, perforations and deaths.”
kozmik wrote on October 29, 2007 3:47 PM:For the benefot of Jake D. and any other like-minded idiots out there...
The Pope, probably the most influential Christian on earth, still only speaks for a minority of Christians.
The number of Chrisians in America who are fundamentalists and bible literalists are very small in number. Maybe 10% of America. Far less in the rest of the developed world. In fact, fundamentalism and bible literalism correlates highly with the less developed parts of the planet, and also in the backwards parts of America.
For a little perspective, Christian fundamentalism in America only outnumbers gays by about 4/1. In the rest of the developed world, the number of gays is fairly constant (due to biological origins in utero) while the number of fundamentalists are far lower than in America, on par with gays, due to higher population density in places like Europe and Asia, which prevent cultural backwaters.
Just, FYI.
Lilly wrote on October 29, 2007 3:50 PM:Jake, your last comment has nothing to do with your initial statement that "Most homosexuals ARE sexually abused as children or otherwise raised improperly."
That is what we were discussing. We were not discussing "homosexuality as disease" or anything like that. I asked you to support your statement and you did not. I know that it burns, but you have to be able to back things like that up.
Our conversation had NOTHING to do with homosexuals becoming non-homosexual.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 3:51 PM:
I could care less what the Pope thinks, but at least three of us AMERICANS think homosexuals can be cured.
kozmik wrote on October 29, 2007 3:52 PM:PS, the point of that was that anyone claiming to represent "we Christians" is basically an idiot, dishonest, or severely delusional.
There is no such thing as a unified Christian base and never has been. Not even in the age of a unified Roman Catholic Church enfored by the Roman empire. And certainly not since the Protestant Reformation and accounting for all the regional variations of Christianity with vastly different interpretations.
Then you have Mormons...
oleeb wrote on October 29, 2007 3:53 PM:Sadly, this is the way the fundamentalists mind works. They believe that because they were "saved" from (fill in the blank with the sin in question) that their fulminations against that particular sin do not constitute bigotry, etc... because they once were "afflicted" with the malady and thus are trying to actually assist those who suffer and who have not been saved from the dread behavior whether alcoholism, drugs, beating your spouse, and so on. It really is sad.
There's lots of research about how the men who go to great lengths--particularly fundamentalist Christian men who go to great lengths to demonstrate their opposition to homosexuality are quite likely to have gay feelings, etc... it's just that they are frightened by them and fear being found out so they overcompensate by attacking gays and so on. This guy would be a good example. Again, really sad stuff.
More importantly, however, is the fact that the numbers of people who really are homophobes is huge. If it weren't, those anti-gay marriage amendments wouldn't have won with gigantic margins in the various states that put the question on the ballot. The whole pro-gay movement is particularly weak in minority communities too. So it begs the question about how to handle such situations. Does anyone who holds unenlightened views on gays receive this same treatment? Many people who otherwise might be considered good, decent people revile gays and openly say negative things about them, etc... It's interesting that this one particular person has been singled out and people have tried to put the squelch on him for it. What makes him any worse than the many millions of supporters of all the Democratic candidates who really are homophobic? Not much IMO.
jane wrote on October 29, 2007 3:55 PM:As to having a religious belief that gayness is wrong not being bigotted please remember that the Bible was also used to justify slavery.
If you will go re-read the Sodom and Gomorrah legend you will see that no homosexual sex occurs -- instead a woman is raped and murdered but no one mentions that....
The Catholic Church urged people to church to pray against the plague .... which naturally lead to its more rapid spread by aiding the spreading of fleas. Something is not necessarily evil or unnatural because it is a cause of danger.
Since homosexual behavior occurs in many animals -- includig geese and rats -- is natural not simply a result of human perversion.
Jake, thanks for the alert that Bush is again trying to appoint an incompetent idiot.
kozmik wrote on October 29, 2007 3:56 PM:Jake,
The ratio I listed above (4/1) would indicate four of you out of five total, not three out of four. You might want to learn basic math before saving the world. Barring that, you might want to adjust your ego towards a more realistic self appraisal and goals, for your own good and happiness.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 3:57 PM:P.S. to Lilly: last I checked, the thread was about a certain Obama supporter claiming "God Delivered Me From Homosexuality" -- I did indeed provide a link to a paper that extrapolated "Most homosexuals ARE sexually abused as children or otherwise raised improperly." Not my fault you can't find the whole article. I could similarly "link" to a picture of the moon to prove it is not made of cheese -- it would not be my responsibility to launch you to the moon, however, in order to convince you personally -- not everything is on the Internets.
I also never said homosexuality was a disease, so that's just a strawman argument now.
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 3:59 PM:The guy was repeatedly raped as a child, you twits.
How could a bunch of self-professed liberals be so lacking in compassion and so fucking self-possessed?
Liberal my ass.
And P.S., all these bitches waxing righteous about this story make it plainly obvious by their comments that they don't know the first thing about African-American theologies or Donny McClurkin.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 4:02 PM:oleeb:
If I may quote Presidential Candidate, Stephen Colbert, on that point "if gay men get married, that threatens my marriage immediately, because I only got married as a taunt toward gay men because they couldn't."
jane:
That woman was raped and murdered to APPEASE the homosexual lusts of the mob trying to rape the angels. I've read it before too.
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 4:03 PM:Thank you, Anonymous.
Lilly wrote on October 29, 2007 4:05 PM:Jake: Pardon me, I assumed that to be "cured" (as you said) one would have to be "diseased" to begin with. That is likely an issue with connotation and I can certainly chalk that one up to semantic difference. I was certainly not attempting to distort your position. I only misinterpreted your position, due to your word choice. I apologize.
I just find it curious that the article, according to you, states something that is not stated in the abstract at all.
If I stated that most Christians were abused as children, certainly you'd not be satisfied if I could only provide you with a link to an abstract that did not contain data that reflected that. Of course, I would not make such a statement.
I apologize to the users on this board for dragging the bullsh*t on, but I really cannot resist calling it out. I hope you understand and forgive me, folks. I'll try to get back on topic.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 4:05 PM:1) Donnie McClurkin
2) Me
3) Dr. James Holsinger
4) Stephen Colbert
kozmik wrote on October 29, 2007 4:08 PM:btw, that would be the ratio of fundies to gays. Four to one.
But since fundies comprise only about 10% maximum of America, the ratio of non-fundies to fundies is nine to one.
Yet, fundies always claim they're a majority... saying vague things like a majority of Americans are Christian... Yeah, except a lot of them are non-practicing, and much of the reminder are fairly liberal and certainly not bible literalists.
All of which makes fundies difficult to take seriously. But then, fundies aren't too bright to begin with.
One of the ironies of the internet is that every kook and fundie with a computer invariably gets on the internet (two technologies that are practically magical to your typical lead paint chip eating uneducated Luddite fundamentalist) to holler to the rest of the developed world from whatever backwoods shack or mosquito infested backwater in which they dwell.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 4:10 PM:I accept your apology, Lilly.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 4:12 PM:I "dwell" in San Diego, CA.
Lilly wrote on October 29, 2007 4:14 PM:Jake: Colbert is a satirist.
You totally had me believing you until you brought up Colbert as an example of someone who thinks homosexuality can be cured. You're good. You just don't expect very many trolls around here. I go on Fark.com a lot, and I'm ready for it there, but...
I'm at a loss for words.
And God help you if you think Colbert's act is real. That's such a fantastic punchline in and of itself.
RobbyLove wrote on October 29, 2007 4:15 PM:kozmik> Talk about bigotry and prejudice...
Your comments are just as offensive and narrowminded as those you condemn.
Expertly done.
Jake, and your point is? God didn't mind the heterosexual rape and killing of the woman, he was just angry that some men wanted other men?
One interpretation of the legend is that it is about the abuse of the rights of a stranger who is a guest in the land to decent treatment and protection ... sort of like the desert version of the Alaska hitchhiking laws.
JR wrote on October 29, 2007 4:48 PM:This back and forth is sad. To paraphrase Rodney King: Can't we Democrats all get along??? I thought we were supposed to be the party with the truly big tent, but you'd never know it from these comments.
Barack Obama is the farthest thing from a homophobic bigot. What he DOES believe is that, as a country, we need to work together if we're truly going to heal. Like it or not, that means gathering with people, some of whose views greatly differ from one's own. Obama's appearance at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church to discuss the fight against AIDS is an example. As a result, some evangelicals are looking at Obama in a more positive light. Why? Because they've found common ground. Some are even considering casting their vote for him.
Growing up in the SF Bay Area, I learned an important lesson. If one remained in SF/Oakland/Berkeley/Marin, it was a blissful liberal bubble. Once you crossed the Carquinez Bridge or drove through the Caldecott Tunnel, you entered a far more conservative world. It behooved me to remember that not everyone's political beliefs were as liberal as mine - some actually were Republicans!
As we enter a tremendously important election cycle, Barack Obama reminds us that it is possible to find common ground without recanting one's longheld beliefs. Like him or not - and clearly many here can't stand him - he is what he is.
As for Hillary Clinton, I hope all read this piece in last week's Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351. If she cannot trust with her policy papers as First Lady, why should we trust her with the Presidency? Do we really want 4-8 more years of opacity???
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 4:52 PM:My "point" in that answer to your post was that the specific woman (in legend, of course) would not have been raped or murdered but for the homosexual lusts of the mob -- there are plenty of less vague Scripture to support the clear proposition that "God Can Deliver You From Sin" -- want to review those too?
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 4:55 PM:"If she cannot trust US with her policy papers as First Lady, why should we trust her with the Presidency?"
I think THAT is today's talking point -- give that man a cigar!!!
"Do we really want 4-8 more years of opacity???"
No (I had to look it up though: "mental dullness").
Jake, I'm not interested in what threat caused her brothers to sacrifice her and whoever raped her was clearly at least bi if not hetero, what I am interested in is why everybody thinks that what made God angry was the desire of some men for other men and that belief that God didn't care about this killing.
Again, are you telling me that God was incensed by the desire of some men for other men and not by the rape and murder of this woman?
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 5:01 PM:You're not interested in plenty of less vague Scripture to support the clear proposition that "God Can Deliver You From Sin" either, huh? Look, God was incensed by the desire of some men for other men AND by the rape / murder of this woman too -- you and I know the truth -- so, at the very least, not "everyone thinks that what made God angry was the desire of some men for other men and that belief that God didn't care about this killing." Next canard?
kozmik wrote on October 29, 2007 5:02 PM:It's not a prejudice to say bible literalists and fundies are ignorant and self contradictory people. They simply are.
It has nothing to do with religious tolerance and th vast majority of religious people are not fundamentalists.
The bible itself is contradictory, so to be a literalist requires by nature a certain degree of ignorance and/or craziness. Most bible literalists are also some of the most incredibly ignorant people regarding their own religion and history as well, having beliefs that are simply factually wrong about the history of Christainity and other religions.
It's no coincidence religious fundamentalism and literalism are always most prevalent in the most backwards and ignorant parts of the world.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 5:04 PM:YOU were the one who brought up Sodom and Gomorrah to claim that "no homosexual sex occurs" (I think I at least proved that homosexual lust "adultery in their hearts" did occur).
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 5:10 PM:Woo Hoo!!! 100 comments!
kozmik wrote on October 29, 2007 5:12 PM:Get a life dude. Anyways, that's all for me. I've reminded myself why I usually avoid debating idiots online.
pepkoka wrote on October 29, 2007 5:14 PM:Well, he's lucky!! to be delivered from his feelings! (Is this possible?)
GB wrote on October 29, 2007 5:20 PM:This is why Dems can't win elections. We say we are for inclusion and against Republi-Fascism and yet, when someone espouses a view with which we disagree, we embrace the tried and true Republi-Fascist tactic of not engaging them in constructive, persuasive debate, but trying to not only silence them, but banishing them (figuratively, of course) from the face of the Earth.
Do we really think that Obama is a homophobe and embraces those views because of the views of one performer on the campaign trail? I mean, unless I've missed something, this guy is not a policy advisor or cabinet candidate.
When will we stop magnifying petty issues amongst our erstwhile allies (e.g. no matter what your opinion on this issue, I think that almost everyone on this list believes that President Obama would be not only superior to what we have now or what the Rs have offered us for the future) and start focusing on the true enemy before it is too late and we are crying over the inauguration of President Giuliani?!
Jane wrote on October 29, 2007 5:26 PM:Jake, have you ever heard Sodom and Gomorrah cited for the proposition God hates rape and murder? Neither have I.
No canard. Nice try.
Start from the beginning, read your Bible, when you finish, come back to us and tell us whether the God of the Bible is a good person or not.
I get really tired of the tendency of Christians to say they have been relieved by the New Testamentof this or than obligation in the Old Testament when they feel God is being particularly strict or ridiculous and when they approve of a particular piece of it to argue o that part applies, after all it's our testament, too. I could construct a very nice God too if I got to cherry pick which parts of the Bible apply? There used to be an ad in the old Saturday Review offering a list of some 300 contradictions in the Bible ... I am regretting that I never sent for it. For starters, who did Adam and Eve's children marry?
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 5:48 PM:As soon as TPM starts a thread on who did Adam and Eve's children marry, we can discuss that all night long -- I have read the Bible from start to finish FWIW and I don't cherry-pick -- again, it's not up to me, but if God wants to make shellfish O.K., but not sexual immorality, who am I to argue? Except for the 32-33 years Jesus was here on earth, God is not a "person". Nonetheless, He was, is, and always will be "good". YMMV (obviously).
Can we get back to the topic of THIS thread now?
RobbyLove wrote on October 29, 2007 5:49 PM:The God of the Bible is good. It is man who is sinful. Man performs the evil acts in the Bible, and is punished by God for his sin.
*****
Ezra 9:13 - And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
1 John 4:11 - Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
*****
I'm not trying to be a Bible thumper here, but I do find that there is as much presumed about its contents by "non-believers" as there is warping of its contents by "believers". Those who want to condemn the Bible pick-and-choose scripture just as much as those who want to use biblical verses to condemn their fellow man.
If I'm going to pick a verse, I prefer the last verse I placed up there.
Dennis wrote on October 29, 2007 5:52 PM:Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 2:59 PM: Dennis: How are the other three children doing?"
They are fine, two with children.
Oh, and Jake, you're wrong about this too, "Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 2:42 PM: Most homosexuals ARE sexually abused as children or otherwise raised improperly."
As a matter of fact, "many" homosexuals have been "raised in the church".
And, stastics show that the percentages of children so raised are equal to those not raised in the church when it comes to having teen sex.
Those "pledges" the churches try to foster on these kids aren't really worth much.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 5:55 PM:"Many" rapists and murderers have been "raised in the church" too. So?
John Crandell wrote on October 29, 2007 6:03 PM:The strangest thing related to but not 'of' this, is that a bloggie on Arriana's site had dinner once recent evening at the hottest new gay restaurant in West Hollywood. Nearby sat Ann Coulter and two companions having their meal. He approached Ms. Coulter to sniff out the irony of the situation and she demurred, as if she wanted to fade into the woodwork. You'd have thought she' gotten high-handed with him, but no. He reported that she seemed embarrassed. What's the real deal here, folks???
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 6:06 PM:I mean, come on -- some, like POed Lib above, have used Bible verses out of context to even argue that Jesus and John had a homosexual relationship -- recently most notably by Jennings (2003). Jennings argues that these verses and the intimacy displayed between Jesus and John, especially at the Last Supper where John is described (John 13:23) as "reclining next to him" (TNIV) or "leaning on Jesus' bosom" (KJV), strongly implies that they were in a homosexual relationship.
However, this interpretation is rejected by Biblical scholars. For example, while someone like Vasey (pp.121-124) uses the "deepest intimacy" of the friendship of Jesus and John to affirm homosexual relationships, even he rejects the idea that Jesus and John themselves were in a homosexual relationship. It is also dismissed by Gagnon (2001) in his large-scale study "The Bible and Homosexual Practice", not least as the word translated "loved" is the Greek word agape (used, for example, in John 3:16; "for God so loved the world"), rather than the Greek word referring to sexual love, eros.
Responding directly to Jennings' claims, Gagnon argued that Jennings misunderstood ancient culture, as people would recline while eating, so the man "leaning on Jesus' bosom" was simply "reclining next to" Jesus, with no homoerotic implication. Gagnon argued: "the idea that Jesus was a homosexual or engaged in homosexual acts is complete nonsense" that no "serious biblical scholar" had ever proposed (Ostling 2003).
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 6:19 PM:Lilly wrote on October 29, 2007 4:14 PM:
Jake: Colbert is a satirist.
My question for all of you Jake haters: How have you not figured out after all of these months that Jake is a satirist? While else would he be here on TPM?
God, people are thick.
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 6:22 PM:I mean, have you noticed how much he reads and quotes that we might describe as "liberal media?"
Please wake up.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 6:36 PM:I am here on TPM as the Devil's Advocate.
Dennis wrote on October 29, 2007 7:10 PM:Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 5:55 PM: "Many" rapists and murderers have been "raised in the church" too. So?"
That's true, some violent people have been raised in the church. In fact, at one point even Jesus was violent....
And your point is?
elrapierwit wrote on October 29, 2007 9:28 PM:I have not seen so many lies on one thread.
Everyone who is sensible understands that sex is a behavior and that all human beings choose what they do sexually.
Humans can choose to be:
swingers
bisexual
celibate
promiscuous
heterosexual
homosexual
sado-maschistic
pedophile
necrophile
There is an entire spectrum of human sexual activities that we choose to engage in.
What is shocking about this story is how grossly distorted it is. Obama was not on the tour, so of course he did not say anything about McClurkin's remarks. He wasn't there! McClurkin did NOT have a platform during the night. His remarks were made to a reporter AFTER his performance when he was ASKED for them. The way the gay community is distorting and misconstruing this story says that McClurkin is telling the TRUTH.
Truth that the gay political community wants to keep hidden, as it does not fit their political message. Ergo, they are villifying MCClurkin and attempting to shout and scream down his message.
Homosexuals hating on homosexuals is what this is about. This is about the politcal message gay activists want to disseminate. They want to deny McClurkin a platform for his message so that the activists can be in sole control of the "message". of what homosexuality is.
The truth hurts. Gays are in denial and they do not want to be held accountable for their sexual choices which so many find repulsive, so instead they discriminate and attack a man who has chosen to deal with homosexuality thru faith. MCClurkin is entitled to deal with his homosexuality anyway he chooses. No one can insist on him only being homosexual in the way that the gay political majority insists is what is right.
The truth is that gays know that homosexuality IS a choice and all the scientific data that suggested there was some biologic or genetic basis has been invalidated and debunked as well as refuted by the very researchers who did the studys suggesting there was a genetic link the first place!!
We know there is no genetic link due to the outcomes of the IDENTICAL twin studies. If there was a genetic link then both individuals in a set of twins would be either homosexual or heterosexaul. What the study found was that the individuals in the set of twins could be either. ie one could be homo and the other hetero. Homosexuality is a CHOICE.
So yes homosexuality is a choice and it is a behavior not an identity. As with all behaviors that means the individual chooses to engage in it. It is no different than all the other biblical teachings on sexual desires. Sexual desires in the bible are temptations and all temptations can be managed through faith.
McClurkin has his message right, it is just so sad that the gay community beleives it is OK to shout down McClurkin and call him hateful names, only because they do not want the truth known.
Obama should not even be in this as he is not even on the tour. What's more he has a clear and unequivocable record in support of GLBT issues.
The gay community are analogous to the fanatic religious right...I hope that we as Democrats ignore this extremism otherwise we will lose the election.
Flame away homohaters, you flame your own so it is to be expected.
destor23 wrote on October 29, 2007 10:25 PM:My oh my Elrapierwit or whiterosebuddy or whatever you want to call yourself... why are you so intent on being able to hate on homosexuals?
I mean, who cares if it's a choice, anyway? We have freedom of expression. Sexuality is a form of expression. It still needs to be protected. Our government shouldn't prefer the heterosexual expression of sexual desire to the homosexual expression of sexual desire.
You keep going on and on about whether or not it's a choice. Nobody cares. If it's a choice, it's a valid choice. There shouldn't be consequences to making that choice just because some idiot like McClurkin thinks it's icky.
dmc wrote on October 30, 2007 2:55 AM:I think elrapierwit makes some very good points on this one. For myself, it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is a choice or not -- consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want.
But the level of vitriol being directed by gay bloggers against a fellow homosexual for his belief system speaks more about the bloggers themselves than McClurkin. Why is it so threatening to the gay community that this guy thinks that he was "cured" of his homosexuality by God?
It's not a settled fact that homosexuality is innate. I would suspect, based on people who I've known, that for some it is innate, while for others it isn't. But clearly, reasonable people can disagree on that topic.
What I really don't get, however, is calling someone a bigot because they believe that it is a choice and that it's a sin under Christianity. That's the official position of most mainstream Christian teachings.
I think we should take Obama's advice to heart and try to talk to (not at) each other, even though we may disagree. But this attempt to ostracize people is a recipe for political suicide if you ask me.
workaday joe wrote on October 30, 2007 11:03 AM:dmc says "the level of vitriol...speaks more about the bloggers themselves than McClurkin."
Amen.
I'm really astonished (and worried) about the firestorm this has created. The beauty of these types of discussions was supposed to be that they sparked, well, discussions. It has really just been a shout-fest and dissent is not taken kindly in these parts. This is the same kind of intolerance that sunk the Republican juggernaut of a few years ago.
The good news is that beyond us political junkies, hardly anyone is paying attention to this story. The bad news is that there is a lot of blind rage pent up on the Left at the moment and people are not in the mood to compromise or to think rationally. Where that leads us is anyone's guess.
Anonymous wrote on October 30, 2007 11:11 AM:Jake has been found out. Satirist, folks. Not the "devil's advocate" he claims to be. Remember this when fighting shadows....
