Jack & Jill Politics

One thing that has occurred to me in this whole Warren mess is that a lot of black folks have been expecting this. Once again, I think back to Michelle Obama, in the excellent Newsweek multi part story "How He Did it", link below. I would strongly urge everyone to read the story. It's long, but fascinating.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167582

In the story, Michelle Obama:

"Michelle Obama was worried about her husband's safety, but was also seized with a kind of free-floating anxiety, recalled Durbin. Even after she said yes, she asked Durbin, "They're not setting him up, are they?" The "they" was all the people who were urging Obama to run. Michelle wondered at their motives."

I think for a lot of us, we wonder, is Obama here to take the fall? The Onion headline a few weeks back was "Black Man Given World's Worst Job." And the context, though it's a joke, is that shit got so bad, white people were willing to vote for ANYONE, including a black man. A joke, but also a whole lot of truth, too.

I realize that some of my reaction to this Warren mess is based on that fear; Is Obama the fall guy? Maybe not, because I think this controversy is inciting a part of the coalition who brought Obama the win, not EVERYONE, and they are genuinely mad and hurt and angry. But I also think black suspicion on the motives of the white community may also drive this fear that Obama is being set up, made to look like fool, and then dumped for the next white politician who comes along. And therefore the conflict grows inside, between one supporter and the next.

Beyond that, I'm sure some of this is multi-posters going from site to site, people who never liked or voted for Obama, and probably a few right wing cooks who are stirring the pot as well.

But for many black people, this is exactly what was expected, and they look at this as the obvious end result. I don't believe this is supporters turning on Obama; but I admit I have to talk myself out of that frame of mind from time to time.

I just hope people are willing to give Obama the chance, and the time, to make a difference. By all means, if you think something he did is wrong, let him know. But by turning your back on him completely, you turn your back on history, on millions of people's hopes and desires, and very sadly in the end, accomplish nothing.

Well, I;ve decided that I don't want to debate whether God condemns gays or not because my belief is my belief. I don't think he does, but I understand there are others that do.

I do disagree with the over dramatization to a prayer that will take place on an amazing day. I think it is political and not necessarily an honest showing. I feel that if Hillary or John Edwards had the same man, there wouldn't be this outcry. I do not understand why Obama is to blame for the failure of prop 8 or the demise of feminism.

This election makes my head hurt.

What lilytiger said.

I understand Miranda,

I'm done. But I had to speak. Otherwise I would be held accountable. I want no one's bloodstain on my hand.

Okay~ Let me tell you...My brother was absolutely sick about the Cowboys. He dreaded going into work because his co-workers are brutal! They're going to dog him! I feel for him!

EVENING THREAD IS UP

1 day ago Michelle wrote:

"This may be part of it: I've been thinking the last few days that there may be a sort of white solidarity dynamic in whatever is going on. Like maybe those white gay people who position themselves and all other white gay people as only oppressed (and not also privileged) are also implicitly saying to white straight people: "You wouldn't let us be treated as bad as Black people are treated, right?" -- implicitly invoking a sort of white race solidarity under the guise of it being about LGBT issues.

And so if that is going on, white straight allies get cover for acting out of implicit white solidarity because it's supposedly not about that, but rather it's about justice for LGBT people. No need for self-critique because it's supposedly (defined as if it is) for justice.

But. I still don't know if I am naming this right at all."

I just wanted to post this again, b/c I feel she has touched on something. When I read it, it was like a bell went off in my head, like this could be why all the rhetoric about the pastor who shall not be named is bothering me. I just want to thank you for posting this Michelle.

Sigh

Well CarolinaGirl, I guess as the ol adage goes...no good deed goes unpunished.

It seems I made a significant error in judgment when I agreed & noted that Michelle gave very incisive commentary on the topic of the RACIST dynamic within the gay community. I was hoping by doing so it would demonstrate to her what agree to disagree means, as I do not harbor any individual bias about Michelle, even though we disagree when it comes to the POLITICAL agenda of homosexuals.

It seems that the well-reasoned and cogent argument I presented in opposition to Michelle has created such cognitive dissonance for her that she is now resorting to the sore loser mentality. Unable to prevail with a substantive rebuttal Michelle now responds by writing a diatribe based on her misconstruing out of context commentary that also omits her exclusionary tactics which elicited the excerpts she selectively posts (so as to distort and mislead the reader) in her now increasingly borderline psychotic efforts to attack the messenger and simultaneously create an atmosphere where everyone agrees with her about the MESSENGER since she can’t knock down the loud and clear truth of the MESSAGE.

A pattern commonly seen when anger clouds your judgment and fuels you to engage in juvenile behavior. Y’ know..where you try to tell everyone else how awful the person is and get them to join up with you and collectively shun the MESSENGER (aka if you are my friend you will hate her, too) cause that person highlighted how flawed your argument was and it frightened you to the core of your being. Fear so great it strikes at her very essence due to the deep and long standing self-delusion. IOW, Michelle can't marshal a well-reasoned rebuttal for a very valid opposing argument and I can engage in just as much psychobabble pathologically bovine excrement as her if I choose to attack the messenger.

Bottomline, if I am right she is wrong…and she can’t HAVE that. It doesn’t matter, that I already agreed and said I support civil unions. Nope, she is out to prove me wrong and if she can’t then by golly, she will make me a villain and a monster to hate so no one will give any credence to the glaring obvious truths I post.

Interestingly, she tries to bolster her efforts by citing her partners' affirmation of her sensory instinct thinking that lacks analytic reasoning. Which is called, going global. or other people think like me as a defense for shoddy reasoning. Feedback which is commonly known as incestuous amplification, and results in poor judgment being reinforced by similarly flawed decision-making process from folks who think link you to begin with.

The good thing here is knowing I am not the only person receiving this sort of divisive character attacks and global ‘mob hysteria’ thinking tactics from homosexuals and or their community. As everyone can see, gay folks, are doing the same to Obama and calling him a bigot and trying to get the world to make him out to be some awful person because he DARED to have someone they disagree with give the invocation. Now, he is a bigot.

Anyone who does not recognize this behavior as dementia is in complete denial or willfully disengaged.

I just want to thank you for posting this Michelle.

carolinagirl, I have something difficult to say about this. I hope I will be able to say it clearly here. This is going to be a long comment.

On this site, I can make a comment that includes these observations you are quoting. In contrast, on the dailykos, in most contexts (with very few exceptions), a comment like this would likely lead to me being told, subtly or unsubtly, that there is something deeply wrong with my behavior and -- more importantly -- my actual perception of reality.

Of course, I use the very same gut modes of perception for my observations at dailykos that I use here.

So. In a recent discussion on another (but not entirely unrelated) topic, a participant in this discussion who finds what you have quoted from me to be incisive commentary wrote to me that:

O my...you are so deluded that you think you can decide what is truth? You are one sick demented person all because of your sexual desires.

This same person also named my perception this way: distorted cognition and this way: your distorted mental belief system and told me I respect your right as an individual to delude yourself and referred to Your type of delusional paranoid self absorbed confusion

Sources:

here

here

Here's the situation: I used the very same gut modes of perception in that discussion as I used to make the observations quoted by you above.

The very same perception-mode that left and leaves me horrified at what I perceive as a dominant-cultural view of sex related to disconnected individuals, objectification, and their individual pleasure ... The very same perception-mode from which I said over and over in that discussion that for me sex is a mode of interaction and communication between real beings ... the very same perception-mode that leads me to observe that talk of gay deviance is deceptive cover for deep overriding pathology about sex in the larger dominant culture and those who carry this part of it .... is the very same mode of perception that yields and enables to make comments like the you have quoted here, carolinagirl.

That is: With regard to the deep under-structure of my perception, the deep matrix of sense-perception, cognition, and deep reality-assumptions that guide me in seeking to understand and try to name what I perceive around me -- what I am saying in this comment quoted here is entirely consistent with what I was saying that yielded those comments about how deluded and distorted my perception is.

The same being is using the same mode of perception and deep understructures to say this being quoted here and what I was saying there -- they are consistent for me.

I was talking with my girlfriend earlier about this, as I realized my response to reading my comment quoted and the ensuing discussion. I was trying to say out loud what I was going to write. And when I tried to say this thing about the same being, she stopped me and said: "It's not about you. It's about where people get defensive because you're getting too close to home."

Over and over, she has seen this pattern in my interactions with other people (and with herself as well). She has told me that my observations from this mode of perception are almost "surgical" in getting to where people get most upset and most protective. At the same time, she has seen that people who are NOT directly under the scrutiny of my critical observations often find them insightful ... that is, when they are about others and/or about areas where they have nothing to protect or defend.

But despite my girlfriend's comment that it is not about me -- in my own experience and perception, I am not a fractured being when speaking from these modes of perception.

Observations from this space come from the same eyes, the same underlying matrix of perception, the same foundational sense-perceptions about reality. In fact, I am also currently engaged in offline observation of my own life and experiences, taking apart some of my understanding of categories related to sexual orientation for my own self, putting aspects of my own life under critical scrutiny with this same mode of perception as well.

I am not speaking from fractured perception, but I observe that responses to me speaking from this perception often come in as if it is fractured, and these examples I am mentioning here are no exception. It seems to me that my girlfriend is right about this at least: My critical observation that feels non-threatening to whatever context or whoever is often lauded, and my critical observation that feels threatening to whatever context or whoever usually leads to me being told that there is something very wrong with how I perceive.

I have never before been in a deep conversation with someone who feels about same-gender sexual interaction as does the person who I quoted who told me of my delusion and distorted cognition/perception. That is, I have never had the experience of someone suggesting in a discussion or argument that I am sick or crazy in my perception of reality because of the gender of the person I am attracted to or in a relationship with.

I have, however, had MANY experiences with people responding to me speaking from this mode of perception by suggesting there is something seriously wrong with me when I get too close to something that they don't want under scrutiny.

My experience is -- it's all the same basic thing, and this is no exception at all. Nothing to do with the specific topic at hand, nothing to do with the gender of who I or anyone is with, nothing to do with the deep quality of accuracy of this observation over that observation. Nothing to do with anything but where people are willing for there to be critical scrutiny from one like me, and where they are unwilling.

In my non-fractured observation, there is a whole whole lot of ugly in these discussions about the gay rights movement, white supremacy and current events around those things. In my non-fractured observation, there are multiple sources and specifics of the ugly.

In my non-fractured observation, people often respond to me as if I am insightful when I am pointing to ugly that does not scrutinize them where they do not wish scrutiny, and as if I am seriously damaged in my perception when I am pointing to ugly that they can see clearly in others. These dynamics are consistent with others in my experience, that my girlfriend named.

But I continue to see what I see, non-fractured. And in an alternative world, if I could request something on this from everyone who might interact with me in this mode of perception, if I had one wish on this, this is what it would be:

Choose. Choose whether you feel that how I do critical scrutiny is crazy or is clarity. Choose and stick to that choice.

If I am crazy in my perception, don't decide I am useful what I say happens to resonate with what you are able to hear. If I am useful in my perception, don't decide I am crazy when what I say happens to get down to areas you will not allow scrutiny of. Choose so you can read this wish the same if it were directed at you (whoever is reading this) or at someone at dailykos or anywhere. Just choose.

But I know from long experience that the concept of making such a request is nothing more than wishful thinking on my part.

Umm...Okay??? *shrugs* I just thought you made a good point. This disagreement that you and WRB got going, I'm not in it. :o) Merry Christmas to you both.

I'm sorry Michelle, I think I read that you were Jewish, so Happy Chanukkah to you and your family.

Just as a note, Channukkah is a seriously minor Jewish holiday that only gets attention in this society because of its time-proximity to a major Christian holiday.

And, I'm sorry that you didn't get what I was saying in that comment and shrugged about it. It's on me, I don't speak these kinds of things in ways that make clear what I am actually saying in language that people can hear.

It's all good Michelle. Keep posting and I'll keep reading. The reason I shrugged is because you kinda drifted off into a different topic, which in my view has more to do w/ the back forth b/w you and WRB, than with me bringing up what you said. You both have a lot of valid points in what you say about a lot of the topics discussed here. I will say that WRB has a debate style that is to be desired (no offense WRB) but don't let that get you down (if it helps, try the Champagne Cosmo). Keep posting and I'll keep reading.

Carolina, did you mean leaves a lot to be desired?

Not offended...am drinking my Champagne Cosmo...not spazzing over this. I done my good deed...I'm moving on.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Merry Christmas, Carolinaagirl
Was that you that posted the new holiday cocktail with GrandMarnier in it?

Whiterose,

Merry Christmas!!!!!!!!!!

Stay safe & enjoy your family.

Merry Christmas, to you too Justice!1

I hope you and your family have a blessed holiday season with lots of CHEER!!!

Yeah, that was me. I'll be trying it this week w/ my friends. One of my best girlfriends is having twins so we have a lot to celebrate. :o)

Easy there! lol

Enjoy! Wishing you & your family a very Merry Christmas!

Right back at cha Justice58.

Um, can you tell me the thread that was on, or would you please re-post the recipe...lol

I wanna try that Xmas CHEER!!

Heyyy

Easy with Christmas Cheer now! lol

Enjoy it!

Champagne Cosmo (get drunk and be merry for the holidays lol)

Ingredients:

1 oz. Belvedere vodka
1 dash Grand Marnier
1.5 oz. cranberry juice
.5 oz. fresh lime juice
1 twist orange
1 oz. Palais sparkling Brût champagne

Preparation:

1) Shake vodka, Grand Marnier, cranberry juice and lime juice over ice.

2) Strain into a chilled champagne flute.

3) Top with champagne.

4) Garnish with an orange slice.

http://www.fineliving.com/fine/entertaining/art...

THANK you.....getting ready to wash my FLUTES!!

Argh, a typo in the above: there is a paragraph above that should read:

"In my non-fractured observation, people often respond to me as if I am insightful when I am pointing to ugly that does not scrutinize them where they do not wish scrutiny -- and as if I am seriously damaged in my perception when I am pointing to ugly in/around them that they do not want to be under scrutiny. These dynamics are consistent with others in my experience, that my girlfriend named."

(I don't have a registered alias so can't edit)

That was pretty deep and thoughtful, Michelle. Of course, we do come to this reality with our own stories and filters.

I like yours and I appreciate the honesty in which it is revealed.

We are complex humans and there are aspects of ourselves that people love and are appalled by and how much is really their own reaction.

Somethings like bigotry are so painful, so lethal , so soul destroying and yet many times done under the guise of saving such soul.

Lets worry about how people hate first, then we can work on how they love.

Happy Holidays all.

Day five of being snowed in a one icy hill on the outskirts of Seattle.

Wow. I believe Michelle is dead right. Very incisive and trenchant commentary. I know that Gay activists do their best not to talk about the black AIDS stats as well becasue they do nt want the face of AIDS to be black.

If mainstream society thinks that primarily blacks are being afflicted with AIDS, the research dollars will dry up! You know the way sickle cell anemia has no new meds or therapeutic interventions in the last 40 years.

So I think what Michelle says is very much the real yin and yang of all this renouncing of blacks and saying GAY is the New black.

"You wouldn't let us be treated as bad as Black people are treated, right?"

dayum

I've been thinking about this too. Especially, how Rachel Maddow, yes Rachel gives Pat BuchKlanan and Mike Huckaboy free pass on their obvious bigotry for anyone who isn't a straight white male.

Someone mentioned that even Keith Olberman went on about porp 8, although he didnt blame blacks for its passing.

Who are the white faces in MSM who push the issue and distort the blatant facts on why prop failed to get defeated. Anderson Cooper is another one, for sure.

Someone mentioned that even Keith Olberman went on about porp 8, although he didnt blame blacks for its passing.



He did go on about Prop 8. It's the only time I've ever disagreed with him on an issue.

KO, works at the same network as Maddow. Think about it for a second. If, you and I work somewhere and there are a lot of Jewish people on the site, you typically get Jewish holidays off, this is very common in school systems as well. It works like that in newsrooms as well. When there are lots of folks who are homosexual or pro-gay rights who serve as leaders (anchor slots) their views are going to be given more weight and emphasis.

Same thing happens if Brazile or Roland are up in the mix on CNN, when an issue important to the black community comes up, they will highlight that.

If they had anchor slots we would hear a lot more about Jena6 if they knew they wouldn't lose their jobs.

I just have to say that it is possible to be straight and not like that prop 8 passed.

smile

But that doesn't mean I will blame the minorities for the loss. I will think the result is that enough people voted against it because that is how they feel. That is okay in a democracy.

O, I understand that Lily.

You are right, we are a democracy.

MerryChristmas LIlytiger

Finally, discus has been giving me problems but I wanted to say Merry Christmas and may the joy of the season be with you and yours.

That goes for all of you. Only the best in the New Year and prosperity and love for each of us!

Mary Mitchell, who admits to having read a PurposeDrivenLife and it helping her with her personal challenges writes:

" How do you put a civil rights icon like the Rev. Joseph Lowery at the tail end of an event that honors the nation's election of its first African-American president?

It's insulting"

http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/1341501,C...

Now, why is it that Ms.Mitchell does not know that in the tradition of the black church, the minister who is the most senior and highly regarded, speaks LAST? They get to wrap it UP!! They get to SPEAK on IT and PREACH on IT so we can PRAY on IT.

Ms. Mitchell seems to be out of her league on this subject. Can someone please send a letter to the editor and tell them Ms. Mitchell don't know what she is talking about when she says it is an insult for the black minister, who is a civil rights icon, to speak last?!!

The same tradition is used in Gospel singing as well. The one highly regarded gets to sing last and close it out! It's the climax of the event! The icing on the cake!


Example~ You don't put Shirley Caesar at the very beginning of a program to sing and have an unknown group follow her!

Justice58: SAY THAT!! :>)

Yep. So how come MS. Mitchell, don't know that with her AfricanAmerican speaking black opinion self? HUH? What is her problem? She has been hatin on Obama.

You would think she would at least look up what benediction means vs. invocation and see how one is of far greater import than the other, no?

One is to invoke a presence the other is to make it sacred.

Have ya'll seen this:

Obama
Report Exonerates Rahm

BTW, thx for the well wishes yesterday. It was actually pretty rough yesterday, I had a fever, the chills, and I couldn't keep anything down. I'm feeling better today, but still having trouble swallowing.

In case you haven't heard...

http://www.suntimes.com/business/1341775,CST-FI...

This quote from the story:

"And locating black McDonald's franchises is a must. "My girls love the fries," she said of her two daughters."

Made me think of this:

"Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds."

LMAO!!! Hal you are a straight fool for that!! I love that movie. :o)

Yes, that was a great one. ..Comin to America

I loved the scene where she told the King, he was KIng and could make any law he wanted, cause he was King...that was priceless!!

Reminds me of women when they say he may be the head of the house, but I am the neck, and he can't move less I say so!!

OK, my people, take a draw and chill...pass it around...

T.

Madoff Scheme Kept Rippling Outward, Across Borders

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20ma...

I would like to commemorate the one week anniversary of the Shoe Thrower.

Bush wonders what history will say about him 50 years from now. I hope that they'll play the video.

Dude.... I watched it again. Still funny...

Webb: LOL! :>) :>)

My article on Booman Tribune. But I think you've all heard about this one:

Key witness in Ohio 2004 voter fraud case dies in suspicious plane crash.

A tipster close to the McCain campaign disclosed to Velvet Revolution (VR) in July that Mr. Connell's life was in jeopardy and that Karl Rove had threatened him and his wife, Heather. VR's attorney, Cliff Arnebeck, notified the United States Attorney General , Ohio law enforcement and the federal court about these threats and insisted that Mr. Connell be placed in protective custody. VR also told a close associate of Mr. Connell's not to fly his plane because of another tip that the plane could be sabotaged. Mr. Connell, a very experienced pilot, has had to abandon at least two flights in the past two months because of suspicious problems with his plane. On December 18, 2008, Mr. Connell flew to a small airport outside of Washington DC to meet some people. It was on his return flight the next day that he crashed.

Uhuh.

What was he doing on a private plane? That's PYA (protect your ass) 101. He should've known better; especially since Rove himself threatened him and his wife.

It was his, he has been flying for a while.

It was the same plane he was having trouble with.

The investigating attorney, Arnebeck, was telling the U.S. attorney, the FBI and everyone he could think of that this guy needed protection. But they got him before they moved on it, if the Feds had been moving on it.

The next question I want to ask is, who lured him out there to D.C.? Who were those "some people"?

Yep, we know how compromised the federal justice system is. How you gone run out of gas, when you are an experienced pilot...either there was a leak or a malfunctioning gauge.

It is just too coincidental. Reminds me of Ron Brown and Wellstone dying in plane 'accidents'

They are tying up the loose ends.

yep

Makes me think of Hoffa.

And his body has yet to be found - 33 years after his disappearance.

In a mellow Christmas mood? This one does it for me...

Vince Guaraldi - Christmastime is here

Verrry nice!

Good call! This CD is part of my holiday music collection.

Jesse is so hopelessly pathetic, that he does not even merit discussion. He is someone that just has to be ignored. He has vigorously earned our contempt.

best Christmas song ever:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuQnZuIjnSo&feat...

Worse? that horrendous "gotta buy my dying mommy some shoes so she can meet Jesus." Ugh.

Oh the Christmas shoes song makes me TWITCH. Christmas songs should not make you suicidal.

If Jesus is so shallow as to give a shit what's on our feet, we are in beeeeeeeeg trouble.

Dear Gay Leaders,

There is a grassroots out here waiting to be mobilized in order to spread your message in an orderly and civil way, proactively. When you think it's time to start the hard work of outreach and education and not assume that every person is automatically going to fall your way, I am ready to work on your behalf to engage and inform my church, and the larger community, about the challenges of the gay community as it relates to equality, discrimination etc.

While I stand in solidarity with you over the misguided choice of Rick Warren, by PE Obama, to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, I will not stand silently by while you go around throwing "fire-bombs" like this. Obama, 'a rational-sounding sort of bigot'? You must be out of your fucking mind! It is just untrue and unfair.

Yes, you maintain the right to articulate your frustration with the way things currently are, but I would suggest that doing it in this manner only serves to harden the hearts and minds of the very people who can help you or those whose minds can be changed.

Just sayin',
T.

Don't ya'll have this argument once a week.

I believe that my initial comment was specifically in response to the very recent article that I linked to above.

T.

Uhm, seriously, how can anyone make a straight-faced argument that the Obama administration has not hired anyone from the GLB community?

Come on, now!

I just read a letter to the editor in my local paper, which said that black people ought to be ashamed of themselves for not supporting gay rights, and blacks morally have no reason to be against gay rights since 80% of black children are illegitimate. It goes on to say that "we" (gays) supported getting a black face in the White House, therefore black people OWE gay people their support on gay rights.

Yeah, THAT'S the way to get black support on gay rights. Not.

Woah.

Can you provide a link for that letter? I'd love to blog about it.

I wrote yesterday that many "white gay leaders" are stupid.

And entitled.

I'd love to meet the author of that letter. In broad daylight. In a boxing ring.

He'd forget his mother's name by the time I'm finished.

Barack Obama got less of the gay white vote than Kerry 4 years ago.

This fucker is out of his mind.

Here ya go:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/l...

It's the very last letter.

Thank you.

I paraphrased his letter, but my first post was the impression I was left with. I had to put the paper down and say WTF?

This is the type of shyt that pisses me off.

Black people are being used as scapegoats.

Who keeps putting these measures on the ballot? It sure the hell ain't Black folk. I tell you one damn thing, black people are so busy worrying about keeping our own families together that we don't have the freakin time to construct the language in these ballots.

Ken Starr is coming to void marriages that preceded Prop 8... and Ken Starr sure the hell ain't no black man. Yet we bear all the brunt of the blame of white folk culture wars.

This shyt is getting tired real quick...

Town, this article is so fucked up. Are you going to respond to this OP ED?

There's absolutely no accountability outlined in this piece on the part of the LGBT community. UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE!

"I just wish the black community and the black churches would take another look at what they are doing to a supressed group of innocent people and remember they were once in the same boat. How quickly we forget once we get ours." (Huh? What is it we are supposed to have gotten?)

A suppressed group of people? Lawdy, hep me!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

THERE ARE NO VICTIMS HERE, ONLY WILLING PARTICIPANTS.

This issue really is between these folk and their religious afiliation.

Outrageous, simply, outrageously,insultingly fucked up!

...remember they were once in the same boat. How quickly we forget once we get ours.

Um, what you mean we, white boy?

I once reviewed a new version of the slave narrative, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. In it, "Linda Brent" spoke about meeting another fugitive slave in the North that she knew also had it badly. For several years the brother had been chained to his master's bed and had been whipped and raped. The Victorian "Brent" couched her account in much subtler words than I have used, but it was evident to me that this young man had been a sex slave for this apparently gay or bisexual master who probably could not find sexual release among his own class, but visited it , along with rage, hatred and loathing, on this black man. The brother could only talk about how glad he was to be free of the fiend.

We've gotten ours? The hell we haven't. Even with Obama in the White House, there will still be racism. Talk about effing bad analogies!

I don't like Rick Warren, or his invitation to pronounce an invocation at Barack Obama's Inaugural. I think it's too much kissing up to the Right, as well as providing an eyewitness to the fact that Obama IS swearing on a Bible and not a Koran for the wingnuttery. It shows me that the Donnie McClurkin controversy was no accident. I doubt that Obama is playing lip service to gays, but it does make me uneasy about his tightrope walking. There are also no openly gay individuals in his Cabinet, among his policymakers, or in his circle. Which makes me wonder how Obama truly views manhood...when he is being lauded as the best expression of black manhood in decades, perhaps in a century.

Meanwhile there are so many repressed gays and bisexuals among the Republicans going out, you would think that they would leave the closet just on GP. But the closet pays for these effed-up people. I'd like to see freedom pay for those who don't want to play that game.

It is not a fight against the Black community or against Warren/Obama. It is a fight against the Church...period!


The Black community, Warren/Obama, are being used as scapegoats!


Coming against the Church is like kicking a Pitch Fork!

Remember....God is the original Law Giver!

His Word will continue to stand.... forever!

Justice 58,

If Obama would have lost the election, but Prop 8 still passed, we would not have heard a damn thing about the racial breakdown of the votes.

I'll admit, I always followed politics but not as closely as I did this year. But I have to say, I NEVER remember so much emphasis being placed on how hard white working class men vote, working class white woman, Evangelicals,educated upper class, soccer moms, latte-drinking white people, and all these other lame ass groups the media boxed us in.

And these marginalizations of people really became amped up because for the first time ever a POC had a chance at the Presidency. And the media tried their damnest during the whole campaign season to give every reason why Obama couldn't and shouldn't win.

And so now in the aftermath we are still dealing with the marginalization of folk. If John McCain had won, and Prop 8 still passed, I could almost guarantee you would have heard a deafening silence...or at least not the outrage that we hear now. Most would have chalked it to oppression of conservatism and left it at that. No one would have cared what black folk thought. But because a Black man won, and they lost an important battle, we becaome the blame for essentially tthe culture wars of others.

And that is why the outreach by the overall LGBT community to Blacks is poor.....because really, they don't for the most part care what we think. And that may soung harsh....and I may be wrong....but this so-called outrage laying at Black people's feet is starting to irk me.

If Obama would have lost the election, but Prop 8 still passed, we would not have heard a damn thing about the racial breakdown of the votes.



You're right on the money! (no pun intended)

The Black Community is being used as a scapegoat because they wouldn't dare be that outspoken against the Church as a whole! Why? It would be an outright assault on the Church! Then they would see a very different reaction.

So they find a scapegoat......The Black Community!

OIC, he is saying that immoral sexual conduct that is normal is equivalent to immoral sexual conduct that is deviant.

"So since we all being sexually immoral, let's support each other's immorality."

idiot

Moron.

"Gay people have been victims throughout history, not just the relatively recent history of slavery in the U.S."

Wow...just.....wow

Yes, guess he wants to go back to Greek and Roman era..you know ever since they re-did Alexander the Great, gay folks been talking about being persecuted since the beginning of time...didn'tcha know?

Now, what color were those egyptian slaves?

The Romans and Greeks hardly persecuted homosexuality. Actually, some Native tribes treated it okay,too. Look to the Britons and their sodomy laws. Granted not as extreme as muslim law but ...

. hmmm, well when are you saying persecution began...wasn't it before that period

What does a 70% out of wedlock rate have to do with gay rights? Cause black teens have babies without being married it means blacks are to support gay rights? Since when did giving birth without a marriage license become the same as engaging in deviant same gender sex?

TRANSLATION: Black folks are deviant, so they ought to be supporting us


AND

Black people need to be GRATEFUL "we" put Obama in the White House.

OMG!!!

Town, you right!! O Hell NAW..

.and then gay folk wonder whyother folks think their sexual conduct is perverted?

There is nothing perverted about reproducing, it is normal.

As a matter of fact, the 70% is only used because it highlights black teen pregnancy...but white teen pregancy OOW is ~30% IIRC.

NOw, do the math...70% of 10K or 30% of 80K


which do you think represents more babies being born out of wedlock?

See, that is why they use precents..to camoflauge the real numbers.

As a rule of thumb, you can just about know whenever folks use percents it is because the RAW numbers tell a whole different storrrry!

Guess all those white folks need to be supporting GAYS too, huh?

Town,

let them keep on digging themselves into a hole.

dig.dig.dig.

Look, I can respect Barney Frank's remarks about Warren. He hasn't said anything scapegoating black folks (to my knowledge, so far) for Prop. 8. He just says, I don't like this. It sends the wrong message.

However, there is homophobia among folks. It's there. It's nothing worth supporting. And it's something that has to stop, regardless of whether Prop. 8 is rescinded by the California Supremes or not. This is some family-shattering, nation-killing shyt.

rikyrah, dig.dig.dig. Hummm.....

Is it any wonder the hardware stores are out of shovels.

It's so troubling to me, rikyrah. So troubling. I'm sure you can imagine why.

Craig, I twant to understand what's troubling to you in all this bruhaha; because I care. I firmly believe that folks don't care how much we know, until they know how much we care.

What I get from your post is that you don't condone the articles and the outcry of blame from a protion of the LGBT community that's being cast on the black community.

Do you sense the outcome of Prop 8 will affect you in some way?
I'd understand if you don't want to reply.

Obama as a black man will never be afforded the stature and respect of the Presidency!

Many of us have experienced this in our professional lives, espedially if you work in corporate.

All of sudden when you get the position, it no longer has the authority and reach which it held prior to you gaining the promotion. You are window dressing and just a black face holding down a space, until the next melaninchallenged rightfully entitled person can be moved into the spot again.

It is true that we should disagree with PE Obama in a way that respects the office of the presidency, but I would not go so far as to say that if someone acts in a manner that we deem disrespectful, it is because he is black. We should remind ourselves to be very careful about going down that path, especially when there is no evidence to support such an assertion.

T.

Well, then what else could it be? Obama is the staunchest supporter of gay rights to ever occupy the WH...so what is it, if not race?

Bush, and his daddy did not support any of the gay agenda, and they never once were subjected to such HATEFUL language and character slurs, so why is Obama different?

It is not good enough that he supports DOMA AND civil Unions...supporting those makes him a BIGOT?

Don't even try to delude us into thinking this is anyTHING other than race.

Evidence you want?
Look no further than how blacks were immediately made the scapegoat for Prop8 failure!! Despite the numbers being completely improbable if anyone had even done the most cursory of a analysis.


Nope, let's blame it on the BLACKS!!
Let's SHYT all over this President and prove to him...he is BLACK too!!

Dayummmmm, I log off for a few hours and ya'll are just bringin it!

Keep it coming.

Co-Sign!

tell it.

tell it.

Sho' U right.

@T:
PE's choice of Rick Warren was not misguided. Remember that Rick Warren's position on gay relationships and on gay marriage is not the fringe view within Christian orthodoxy, it is the mainline view. I suppose he could have chosen someone with the opposite perspective but he would have to go out of his way to do so since most Christian Pastors also oppose gay marriage. Any pastor supporting gay marriage when scripture strictly forbids gay relationships would be going outside the pale of orthodoxy. Of course, within the church, the pastor has an obligation to teach and preach the scripture and to uphold it as truth which should be modeled and followed by his "flock." One should not expect Rick Warren or any other pastor to go "rogue" with the text.

Further, Obama and Biden have both said that they oppose gay marriage so I don't know that Obama's choice of Rick Warren was wrong based on his own personal beliefs. However, I assume that the invite was not based on his personal feelings as much as it was an extension of an olive branch to evangelicals who distrust and dislike Obama. He probably didn’t need to extend the branch and I’m not sure what it’ll accomplish since I don’t think he’ll sway the conservative evangelicals. (Interestingly, Warren is respected but would not be considered the most conservative of evangelicals. The very fact that he's agreeing to pray at the Inauguration has caused other evangelicals to criticize him.)

I think that gay rights advocates need to understand that the tension between their movement and the church will not be resolved or reconciled because the only way to resolve it within the church would be to ignore or rationalize away biblical teaching. I realize that the rights afforded to gays by society must be respected just as the rights afforded other citizens are respected. I believe that Rick Warren understands that too. However, when it comes to his own conduct or the positions that he will take on issues of controversy, those must be governed by a biblical standard. This is why he could not condone or advocate for gay marriage, nor could he officiate them himself. Why would a pastor do something that he felt would lead others to judgment?

Aron

RELIGIOUSLY, the church, the mosque, the temple, etc. should not HAVE to endorse gay marriage or a gay lifestyle. Period. They should not have to perform gay marriages or accept the gay lifestyle. If that offends anyone here, tough. If Laptop Baptist Church refuses to perform your marriage ceremony, dust yourself off and find another church that is more accomodating.

LEGALLY, I don't know how you can ban gay marriage because marriage in the legal sense is just a contract for two people to merge their finances together and be counted as a family. Legally, what does it matter if it's a man and a woman merging their finances together or two men or two women merging their finances together?

Rick Warren gets the heat because he comes right out and says "Hey the Bible says you're going to hell, so if you continue in this vein, off to hell you go." Well guess what? Many other preachers believe the same thing. It's not that Rick Warren believes gays will go to hell for their lifestyle, it's that he's upfront with saying that.

Ultimately the Gay Mafia is playing a losing game with the GAYS HAVE NO RIGHTS BECAUSE OF BLACKS game because bashing a group of people because they aren't down with your cause isn't the way to sway them to your cause. Hasn't anyone learned from the GOP?


Well, of course not because the GOP hasn't even learned. *shrug*

"RELIGIOUSLY, the church, the mosque, the temple, etc. should not HAVE to endorse gay marriage or a gay lifestyle. Period. They should not have to perform gay marriages or accept the gay lifestyle."

I don't think those people should have do to any of those things, either. I just think that I don't have the right to tell gays that they can't get married or that they can't do any number of other things, and try to make it law. Why? Because I know how I would feel if someone told me I couldn't do something becuase I'm black.

The day you get to consent to being black is the day your post will make sense.

There is no Gay Mafia.

Yeah, ok.

Just a large chunk of gay people in the media "just happen" to have the exact same talking points.

Ok. Whatever.

Regardless of whether there's a gay Mafia or not, bashing black people and blaming black people for the loss of gay rights is NOT the way to get black support.

I agree.

And Thank GOD, there is no gay marriage either.

I have no objections to Gay marriage. I honor an individuals lifestyle choices.

I take issue with the means by which a select group of folks are behaving blamming another group of people-BLACK people & name calling-racial slurs about the PEO), in regards to the passing of Prop 8 and the selection of Rick Warren by PEO to deliver the Inauguration Invocation.

YET.

There is one thing that gay leaders and advocates could clarify that would help me when I approach my church congregants: Is this a fight for the M-word or is this a fight for equal rights? Would the gay community be satisfied with a state-by-state definition of what marriage should be, but then fight for a federal civil unions giving you the same rights as heterosexual married persons?(I hope I am clear by what I mean here.)

T.

Neither. It is a fight to create an upheaval in the social structure of a civil society and subject children to deviant conduct that has been sanctioned by the majority of society.

You are incorrigible, is all I have to say. Why not just say nothing if you're not going to offer anything constructive or any new viewpoint to the conversation?

T.

That was a constructive viewpoint, perhaps it did not agree with the focus you wanted?

I admit, I could have phrased it more constructively and typically I might have...but today ..I am just outraged at the audacity of homosexuals to label Obama a bigot.

That is unconscionable to me. I do not even agree with Obama's stance POLITICALLY on gay marriage and DOMA, even if we do agree personally, as he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman too..

So, for them to excoriate Obama with HATEful language is intolerable and I am not of the temperment today to express viewpoints as constructively as I am capable of.

Sorry...pray for me.

Excellent Post! The Church will not rationalize away biblical teaching! It ain't gonna happen!

Does that include the biblical "teachings" they used to justify slavery?

Plantsmantx,

You wanna go tit for tat!

Bottom line....

No one can come against the Church and win!

The End!

Nah, Justice. I'm just putting my opinion out there. It's not even about "coming against the church". By that logic, no one should ever "come against", or criticize, white racist "Christian Identity" churches, no matter what they advocate.

No Plantsmantx,

This isn't about coming against people who inject their racist Christian views! False prophets arise but you shall know them by their fruit.

This is about coming against the Word of God!

Biblical teaching is aways a matter of interpretation. Religion IS politics.

Why are people not condemned for mixing wool and linen anymore?

It ain't the bible. It is the tenets of the Christian faith. No matter how you teach the bible. The bible is clear. Homosexuality is a sin. Christians repent sin and ask for redemption. Homosexuals want to go up in the church and not just flagrantly flaunt their sins, but proclaim they are not repentent!

That is unChristian. It is the antithesis of the core Christian tenets, which means Gays do not belong in Christian churches or communities as they are not going to abide by the Christian tenets.

Or maybe I should say they want to be selective about the kind of Christian they want to be. They want to worship God, and get married in the church but they do not want to abide by God's tenets and they want to denounce the church's principles.

Guess what?

The ten commandments are not multiple choice and neither is the Christian faith.

As for that wool and linen query...it's because science debunked the myths about wool infecting linen...

Homosexuality is a sin. Christians repent sin and ask for redemption.

It became a sin because the ancient Hebrews wanted to increase the birthrate.

Onan was supposedly struck down by god because he was masturbating without putting that so-called sacred seed in a woman. That's not increasing the birthrate either.

Moses spent his early life among the Egyptian priesthood. Their rites included simulating or achieving masturbation for the Pharaoh as the emblem of the living god. There is other stuff I could say, too about what the Egyptian priesthood did with the Pharaohs, stuff Moses definitely witnessed and quite possibly participated in. But this is a family website.

Warren is wrong on all counts when he says that most cultures and religions recognize one man and one woman. Christianity had several wedding rites for same-sex couples within the first few centuries of its existence.

I'm Buddhist, so I don't subscribe to this "the Bible is supreme" stuff. The Bible is fallable. So fallible that it is human.

Blksista,

God made male & female. Homosexuality was a sin before Onan. Genesis 19:24. Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed because of it.

Sorry, but I don't believe in all that.

I mean no disrespect to you or anyone. I am only having a discussion about Truth.


You believed (Homosexuality) It became a sin because the ancient Hebrews wanted to increase the birthrate.

God's Word does not become Truth because we believe it. It is Truth whether we believe it or not.


The Bible contain 66 books. You can't pick parts you like and disregard parts you don't like.

Truth is relative.

Faith is not always supported by facts.

I am not a Christian; therefore, I have no belief in your 66 books.

It's your free will!

That's what so wonderful about God. He lets us make our own choice whether to accept him or reject him!

Merry Christmas!

Every since folks started taking multiple choice exams they think anything they study has multiple choice answers.

It don't!!

Ok, about the explanation or the origins.

How does that change the christian tenets that it is a sin and that christians believe that sin is to be repented and to abide by christian tenets a christian has to cease sinning and work on not sinning.?

I am not trying to say the Bible is supreme. Rather, it is the basis for Christian tenets and the core beliefs of the Christian faith.

So, why would anyone seek to become a member of a community where they do not intend to practice the core tenets of the faith based community? And why would members of that community welcome individuals who refuse to practice their faith.

That's my real point.

The bible may be fallable but then so was Budha, no? He was nothing but a man, thus fallible like all humans as well.

IOW, one person's bible is another person's budha

So, why would anyone seek to become a member of a community where they do not intend to practice the core tenets of the faith based community? And why would members of that community welcome individuals who refuse to practice their faith.

Black gays join black churches for more than just an expression of their gayness. They join to express their blackness, too. They want to be a part of that community for fellowship, not to be lonely, and to be creative (i.e., their contributions in singing and music, for example).

I doubt whether gay marriage is going to force open any doors that are going to remain closed for the time being. Like I said, there are other churches and fellowships and religions that are welcoming gays. The more extreme and doctrinaire, such as the Southern Baptists, of which Warren is a part, won't.

Answer me this question: why would certain Christians want to keep other Christians from marrying each other? They consider their vows just as binding as those of straights.

The core tenet of Christianity is to love one another. I find it interesting that the Old Testament is used to beat gay Christians over the head rather than the New.

Blksista, I understand that it is a cultural thing and that for some church is a social hour. But when we are talking about marriage in the church we are talking about pledging fidelity, in the name of faith, in front of a Christian community as a witness to God. When you make that pledge it is a faith based pledge.

While I do not think gays come to church to celebrate their gayness, they also have made it pointedly clear that they do not plan to renounce their sinful ways. That is incongruent with the christian belief system. Let's just say the person was an adultress instead fo gay. The adulterer claims to be christian and that they are going to continue to committ adultry. Well, that is not adhering to the tenets of the faith. That is wanton disregard for the faith. If an adulterer beleived in their heart that adultery was best for them, why say they are Christian, when their actions and belief system is not one based in the christian religion.

The church does accept all comers, the christian community does not hate sinners they love them and hate the sin, but as Christians they too have an obligation based on being christian to guide and support individuals to live a christian life. So, it is not just the sinner who is in violation of the faith tenets, but the christians who are there to help them and give them the strength to be strong enough to cease sinning.

With regard to the Old Testament vs. new....it is the difference between God's grace being given as a new covenant in the new and having to be earned in the old testament. The new testament says, you have God's grace and it is yours to lose. To keep it, you only have to beleive in his son and repent your sins and redemption is yours. Homosexuals say they will not repent.

Blksista, to me it is as simple as...having house rules...and some people come over to your house and say they are not going to follow your rules. You tell them they have to leave or respect your house. Instead of leaving they get indignant and begin to challenge you on the rules in your home. Ask you WHY it has to be that why and not their way and who are you to make a rule where the fun they indulge in is not tolerated.

Now, do you think in those circumstances that you would be being extreme or that they could simply go somewhere else if they choose not to respect your home? You don't hate them for not following your rules, but for sure you would not tell them they were welcome would you? Nor would you have patience for their intoleance of your rules in your home.

And what if you had small children? Those same folks would insist on being in your home and jumping up and down on your furniture while telling yoru children it was OK because it was fun and they liked it and anything that was that much fun couldn't be bad even if their mother said it was.

Would you honestly tolerate that? would you simply not want your children exposed to that? would you just politely and kindly tell those rule breakers to get the hell up out your home and not come back until they were able to follow your rules?

The Buddha did not wish to be worshipped. He, however, wished that adherents study and revere The Law, which is infallible.

they also have made it pointedly clear that they do not plan to renounce their sinful ways. That is incongruent with the christian belief system.

So 'sinful ways' equals making love and pledging fidelity to the man or woman gays love? That is some really stupid thinking, and I've made that clear earlier.

Blksista, to me it is as simple as...having house rules...

No, it isn't the same. False analogies again. And bringing children into the hypothetical mix isn't impressing me at all, it's just showing me once more how much of a fanatic you are.

Um, Buddha was a man, who was fallible and he created THE LAW.
The Bible is a book written by men, who are fallible. They are both equal in terms of fallibility if that is the criteria for not abiding or rejecting one or the othere.

Sins are defined in the bible. If you think it is stupid, that's fine, you are entitled. Many other people think listening to what a man called Buddha said is THE LAW is stupid too. Reject what you like just do not try to make one more than the other cause it is all the same thing.

The analogies weren't false. Perhaps you refused to think about them, but false they weren;t. The church and christian faith have rules, most individuals have house rules as well. Nothing false there.

I am not a fanatic about anything. What I am is a person with a lot of well reasoned thoughts which most folks find difficult and challenging to rebut. My object was not to impress you in any way. Rather, analogy's are typically used to facilitate understanding when ideas are being communicated.

You can reject those too.

What you can't do is say that your opinions are supported by facts.

But you are entitled to them.

Nice chatting with you.
I will look for ways to agree with you in the future, even though on this we will have to agree to disagree.

Um, Buddha was a man, who was fallible and he created THE LAW.

Again, you show your wilful ignorance, this time about Buddhism. The Buddha did not create The Law, as you believe. All religious systems do not always begin with a creator, but neither does it mean that they do not have merit.

I am not a fanatic.

So says a religious fanatic. You can play all the word and logic games you want, because they do not make a hell of a lot of sense.

What you can't do is say that your opinions are supported by facts.

The so-called facts you gave were fallacies. I've seen them before in various places basically to support fundamentalist hatred, fear and wishing that gays "moderate" their behavior or to justify discrimination. So I am not overwhelmingly impressed with what you present at all, because I rejected them long ago.

I want gays to be full human beings, and to see them achieve full civil rights and to marry whom they choose and to raise up generations.

BTW, I saw Harvey Milk on a street corner campaigning on Castro Street long ago. It's something I've never forgotten, and while Milk was never the saint some have made him out to be, he was the equivalent, at least for gays, of Martin Luther King. I remember when he was killed, and I remember the White Night Riots, and the commemorations of his death.

I have walked in Gay Day parades in support of my friends living and dead. So what you say is repugnant and immoral, and this superior, belittling tone throughout says more about the emptiness and narrowness of your life view than its fullness and depth..

Look, just because the topic is religion and homosexuality does not make me a religious fanatic! I am presenting an argument not prosletyzing..geez

And if you do not know that Buddha DID create THE LAW that is on you.
Do a little more in-depth studying on Buddhism.

Facts are not fallacies. Opinions most often times are when they meet up with the facts as yours have here.

Nothing belittling about stating truths. My life is rich, full and very satisfying, because I do not engage in self-delusion to make myself right and the world around me wrong just to support a need for deviant sexual desires.

So science trumps the word of g*d? Interesting religion you've got.

Apples and oranges.

Faith ain't science.
and
Science ain't faith.

I do not beleive in creationism.

The ten commandments are not multiple choice



Good one. I like that!

There were more than just ten.

Lavender,

I have nothing, nothing against you as a person!

But this fight against Rick Warren is bigger than Rick Warren. Actually, what it really boils down to is..... the fight is against the Church. It is hard to kick against a Pitch Fork!

You sound as though the church shouldn't be fought against. The church has a long and storied history of oppression of all sorts of people to go along with its uplift.

We can't overlook the ugly simply to exalt the beauty.

God is great but religion is man made with motives and agendas.

Not all of them are to praise the glory of God either.

It doesn't bother me when my neighbors celebrate Hanukkah so I also don't get upset when they decide to join their lives together with people of the same sex. It is the same difference to me.

Yes. The Church has been fought against. People warred against it. But the Church is still standing.

The Church is the body of Christ which he is Head.

Anyone fighting against the Church is going to lose!

Just because the church is still standing doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Christ.

The church is a powerful institution. It survives because powerful conservative institutions survive. Much like the American presidency.

It's in the nature of powerful conservative institutions to do so.

Are you Catholic? There was the great schism between the Roman Catholics and the Orthedox. Then came Luther.

etc.

The church is always being challenged. I mean this respectfully, I am just debating the point not the poster.

No, I'm not Catholic. I'm a born again believer.

You know, I see the black church as a political as well as a spiritual arm of black experience, nothing more.

Yall don't have to accept black gays marrying in your churches. They can find their own churches, synagogues or meeting places where they can exchange vows of fidelity.

Fidelity.

That's the same as the vows a straight couple might say to each other.

So what is wrong with that?

They can find their own churches, synagogues or meeting places where they can exchange vows of fidelity.



Yes. But will it be Sound Doctrine tho? Will it be profitable for reproof, correction, for instruction in righteous? The Holy Scriptures are!

Er...again, in your fanaticism, you are insisting that gays don't make love or have sex at all, even in a loving relationship or marriage. And that is contrary to all that is human.

Unless a gay, lesbian or straight is a proven sex addict, I don't think that they need 'reproof' or 'correction.'

I'm not insisting anything. I'm only speaking what God's Word says.

My feelings or opinions has nothing to do with it.

I have to tell it or I will be held accountable.

If they find a church to cater to their desires...it's not sound doctrine!

Nothing but....

It is incongruent.

How can folks claim to be christian ...which is what churches are...houses of christian faith...and not abide by christian tenets.

In a world where folks are changing the meaning of marriage and who want to pledge fidelity in a house that they choose not to adhere to the faith tenets of, what then can fidelity mean?

Does it to, have another meaning in the topsyturvy upside down world of same gender sex partners.

Is fidelity, only in the spiritual moment and promsicuity the holy grail of what it means to be homosexual? At least several gay authors have postured that...that the very essence of being gay means you do not have to pledge fidelity..loyalty yes, fidelity no.

There is nothing wrong with that. Except it just seems to render everything into a whole other shape and perspective, after all what can fidelity mean when it is pledged in a church you do not even practice the beleifs of...what then is fidelity under such circumstances?

Is fidelity, only in the spiritual moment and promsicuity the holy grail of what it means to be homosexual? At least several gay authors have postured that...that the very essence of being gay means you do not have to pledge fidelity..loyalty yes, fidelity no.

Excuse me, but in which books have you read this kind of thing? Or are you talking about some public gay writers who were living some 25-30 years ago, at the dawn of gay liberation and before AIDS who were giving their opinions about what fidelity meant to them, some for shock value?

The gays I have known have been with their partners and consorts for more years than my parents' marriages combined. A couple have children.

Those gays who wish to marry want to be true to each other, and not to anyone else. That's fidelity as they know it, and as they've known it from their families if not Christian teachings.

You expect two gays who want to be with each other exclusively not to make love? To live platonically? And if they don't, that is a sin?

Interesting...

Makes me glad I am not Christian anymore.

God does not force himself up on no one. You can accept him or reject him. It's about free will!

But still, there are consequences for one's actions!

I personally have no expectations. I was noting what the Christian tenets are and what it means to be Christian.

I don't think these are 25-30 years ago:

* Signorile, a well known homosexual advocating safe sex, speaks of the "raunchy, impersonal atmosphere" of sex in public parks and bathrooms, "There's nothing morally wrong with this--and I say that as someone who has certainly had my share of hot public sex, beginning when I was a teenager and well into my adulthood.”http://www.nogaymarriage.com/talkingpoints.html."
*

Bisexual website: “ [T]he hottest campus flicker of the moment is rompy Threesome, the jingle of which probably sums up the idea behind the new way of viewing life best: "One girl, two boys, three possibilities… the next object of your admiration could just as well be a male as a female" “The New Bi-standers” http://www.biwebsites.com/article1.html

· From a gay website:”Polyamory (many loves) is a relatively new word created for relationships where an adult intimately loves more than one other adult. This includes forms like open couples, group marriage, intimate networks, triads…It is another word for nonmonogamy. http://lovemore.com/aboutpoly

And then there are these 10 year old stats:

# the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25.7 AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging in promiscuous gay sex.
# Monogamy, meaning long-term sexual fidelity, is rare in GLB relationships, particularly among gay men. One study reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year, and nearly 90 percent if the relationship lasted five years.

Even pro-homosexual sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz report in an American Sociological Review article: Children of lesbians are less likely to conform to traditional gender norms; Children of lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior; Daughters of lesbians are "more sexually adventurous and less chaste." Lesbian "co-parent relationships" are more likely to end than heterosexual ones.

The Boston Globe reported June 29, 2003, that nearly 40 percent" of the 5,700 homosexual couples who have entered into “civil unions" in Vermont "have had a previous heterosexual marriage

So, your point being?

This is only one view, and it is not the only view.

My point was that THE view was not 25-30 years old as you seemed to be saying it was. I had the impression that you thought THE views were no longer true based on the hand full of people you know.
I thought it would be best to share how THE view was based on scientific research and not personal anecdotes or only on authors books you perecieved as 30 years old, and was not soley MY view.

All of which went to the point of fidelity not being essential in homosexual relationships. So why is there a need to pledge it in the church, and especially in a church whose tenets the couple do not adhere to.

What you wrote was not scientific, but simply bent to support your narrow point of view. They are not logical, just propaganda. And I reject it, just as many gays (not just the 'handful' that I know) would reject these assessments of what their lifestyle truly is. Signorile speaks for himself, and suddenly he's the spokesperson for every gay? Ha...!

Reply at bottom of thread

Craig, I agree with you on the chuch's history. I don't go to church nor am I Christian. I was raised Christian, and have sense chosen to move on. It served me well and I am grateful.

I don't force my beliefs on others nor do I want to be condemned and have others force their beliefs on me.

However, I do believe that the church or anything else I want to partake of should work for me. I don't want to fit in to blend in.

I

So, you Craig believe that in the name of homosexuality the church should be fought against. That the bastion of moral turpitude in civilized communities should be toppled for the immorality of homosexual desires?

wow...absolutely fascinating

'Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals".'

Well, if the church is indeed a bastion...

oops typing on too many sites simultaneously.

that should be moral rectitude

Justice58, I agree with the true issue being the church in this Warren deal.

To Lavender: Each person needs to take responsibiity for your own thoughts and beliefs. This is an individual issue, and has no place in the political arena.

I don't believe same sex relationshps are deviant. I don't care. What I take issue with is blaming Blacks for not supporting an agenda that they were not invited to participate in or even had a hand in creating.

I take issue with that as well. Blaming Blacks for the passage of Prop H8 is racist, wrong and stupid.

From your lips to the ears and hearts of the angry bigoted mob mentality.

We agree Lavender!!

Yep. Break it down.

That is god awful. Time magazine needs to seriously consider why they are sanctioning these types of articles.

All the crap the evangelicals did and Bush did and NOT once, was there EVER a prominently featured article where he was proclaimed to be a BIGOT...not once in EIGHT friggin YEARS!!

Maybe now people will understand what I meant about gays being disproportionately represented in the field of journalism and broadcasting. That is why there is such an unrelenting bashing of Obama going on over a hugely insiginificant invitation. If this was policy it might well be understood. Hopefully, they will use all all their political goodwill on Warren and be completely ignored when there is a significant issue. I for one will ignore this special interest group in terms of their political agenda.

Homosexuals are not a great enough percent of the population to have such issues blaring from headlines and out the mouths of talking heads. They do predominat in newsrooms and newspaper editorial rooms.

We were tipped off to the virulent racism in the group and how knee jerk racist many individuals who call themselves gay are when Prop8's failure was assigned to blacks as the reason it failed.

Obama is black and they are going to demean and sully him in the interest of their deviant sexual conduct.

Then, in what is their o so ironic and never ending distortion of reality to compensate for the deeply deviant conduct on their part, what will they do and say? They will demand to be treated as 'equals' they will demand 'HUMAN rights' and they will demand everyone else be tolerate as they turn the world upside down to fit in the deranged mindsets.created so they themselves do not have to be accountable for their actions...and everyone else does and everyone else is to blame and needs to be tolerant...just not them.

Reading your posts are becoming an addiction for me. I'm not going anywhere near the discussion on whether or not gay sex is deviant, but I will say your analysis of the disproportionate respresentation of gays in the press room is brilliant. There is no other justification for why a community so small in number and so politically ineffective is getting this much attention. On the heels of a major defeat for the LGBT Community in arguably the gayest state in the country, how is this much attention warranted?

I'm fully supportive of gay marriage specifically and full LGBT civil rights generally, but I'm starting to get more than little pissed at the name calling and equating their struggles to ours. Ranting and raving does not a movement make, and what little gains they've made they are at serious risk of losing if they continue down this road.

WRB deserve props!

WRB, I am sooo sick of you calling gays deviant. Whatever you think of the politics, it is so ugly for you to keep saying we're deviant and deranged. Ugly, nasty and wrong.

Yes I agree and am getting tired of the misinterpretation of the Bible and equation of the Bible with the "Black" church with people who don't even adhere to certain basic things: like no fornicating. But apparently teh gay is the WORST of everything and what some straight people is just a little mistake to be glossed over. Some people want to claim a mantle of superiority when they don't know anything.

If there's one commandment I'm going to follow it's the one JESUS said about LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. Which so many of the self-righteous religious wannabes can't seem to follow.

Not to mention the fact that Jesus actually did not say one word about condemning "homos". But again, those that claim to follow the Abrahamic faiths totally miss the boat.

You are only giving the devil her due.

I've had to leave that one alone.

Hrrmph.

First off I did not call gays deviant. I stated clearly their sexual conduct is deviant.

Furthermore,

I am sick of gays calling folks homophobic and bigots. It is so ugly for them to use such inflammatory language every time they come up against staunch disagreement.

What I am soooo sick of is the unwarranted baseless vile, ignorant, despicable attacks on people's character by gays and gay activist to promote their agenda by engaging in slurs and impugning individuals integrity.

If gays want respect they need to bring respect!

Until, then I will use terminology that is precise and accurate.

Same gender sex is deviant from the norm and it is abnormal...queer, unnatural...and when being polite...I will use the greatest specificity and refer to the sexual conduct as deviant.

Any individual who things same gender sex is not deviant has a deranged mindset.

I do not have to submit to being brainwashed and propagandized to fit some other special interest group's collective narcissitc self-delusionment.

Same gender sex is deviant from the norm and it is abnormal...queer, unnatural...and when being polite...I will use the greatest specificity and refer to the sexual conduct as deviant.

Sorry hon, but you are one ignorant woman.

Gay sex is natural; it's even among the so-called lower animals.

It's not something I would do, because I am straight. But for them, it's natural. We feel good doing what we love doing. So who the f*ck am I to tell them what is natural and what is normal?

I do not have to submit to being brainwashed and propagandized to fit some other special interest group's collective narcissitc self-delusionment.

Um, you are out of your mind. And it's your choice.

Blksista are you really comparing homosexual behavior to animals as a way to establish it as normal? Are you really going to animals? Are you ignoring that as human beings homosexuals are not compelled to act on their impulsive needs or desires because they have free will to DECIDE and CHOOSE rather than to simply act in an animalistic fashion.

There is nothing whatsoever natural about same gender sex. It is deviant.

My mind is clear. My thoughts are rational. I am not condemning anyone nor insisting that they change their behaviors. But what I am doing is not buying in to any propaganda that says homosexuality is normal. Any behavior that makes up less than 1% of a society is deviant. Extremely deviant from the norm.

I didn't drink the KoolAid on same gender sex. That was more than a choice it was a rational decision.

BlkSista, just so I can see where you are coming from. Do you consider anal receptive sex normal as well?

There is nothing whatsoever natural about same gender sex. It is deviant.

Like I said, your choice.

Just don't continue to spread ignorance, self-aggrandizement, and hate in the world. Truly.

I don't have an overriding, nearly prurient interest, as you do, into which holes penises must enter in order to achieve a state of grace.

Hahaha!...you label my interest prurient, when I attempt to discern your parameters for normal after you say if animals do it it is natural? Please.

Your prurient interest obviously includes animals copulating...and you claim I spread ignorance. O please.

Then you call the act of penis penetration orifices as a 'state of grace'

lol lol...talk about truly deviant choices...truly.

Deviant is not about choice, deviant is a specific factual term.

You can have your opinions but you don't get to choose your own facts.

Merry Christmas
hope you
achieve
your
state of grace!!

lol

Gay sex is natural


No it's not. It's against the natural order of God. He created male & female.

It's God's Word. Not mine.

One of the worst is Jonathan Capehart at the Washington Post. He has yet to say anything straight out positive about the Obama. Whenever he's on TV all I keep hearing is how Obama doesn't measure up on one thing or another. Crabs in a bucket.

From day one! I could not imagine being so consistently wrong and remaining so arrogant. He along with his maters at MSNBC have underestimated Obama at every step and rather than admit they were wrong, they continue to underestimate him.

He's been a Horn-Rimmed Handkerchief Head this entire election season.

Capehart is a WEASEL,

I use to HATE listening to him during the primaries. Arrrrgh!! Even after Obama won the 11 consecutive primaries in Feb, Jonathan still was unable to be supportive.

Capehart is a nauseating sycophant!!

I second that!

While I empathize with the writer's frustrations, I strongly disagree with the his/her characterization of PE Obama. That type of rhetoric is just not helpful, Rick Warren or not.

Having said that, I do not think that the invitation of Rick Warren, to the inaugural festivities, is "hugely insignificant", as you have stated above. By saying that, you run the risk of marginalizing our displeasure with PE Obama's decision. Furthermore, you refer to gays as "deviants"?. I'm sorry, but that type of rhetoric is not helpful either.

T.

Blacks have been marginalized and blamed since Nov. 5th regarding gay issues. By continuing to blame "blacks" for the reason why Prop. 8 passed and why gays have no rights, you risk alienating a group from your cause totally.

What you say is right.

But we need to stop generalizing about Blacks and gays, even as others continue to do so.

Some Blacks are gays and some gays are Blacks.

This is not insignificant.

Yes, it is significant.

The problem is that black gays need to stand up and decide which is of greater significance in their lives.

Why should it be an either/or proposition?

It is not either or..it is which is more significant in their lives. Does race have a greater impact or their sex life.

It wasn't for Bayard Rustin.

And Barbara Jordan and a bunch of other good people, with principles who actually did some good - unlike a lot of the "straight" people who sold them out or stepped over them to jockey for the gravy train that followed Civl Rights and the Black men who used it as a way to chase after white women.

Uhuh.

To make love or not to make love.

And to be eunuchs for the rest of their lives.

OK...sex is more significant than race.

Got it.

No, sex is natural, regardless of race.

Yes, sex is natural, regardless of race. It's a beautiful thing. But God has in place guidelines in how we are to engage in it.

The Scripture says "Therefore shall a man leave his father & mother and shall cleave unto his wife....and they shall be one flesh".

Yes, I referred to their sexual conduct as deviant. If they can use inflammatory language to excoriate Obama, then turnaround is fair play. I am intolerant of the nasty homophobic language gays use like toddlers in a temper tantrum when trying to get their way. I no longer will be any more courteous or respectful of the tactics of their political agenda and will return fire with fire.

Name me ONE President, who has ever been subjected to such a demeaning headline. Name ONE!! What makes this even far more egregious is that Obama is the strongest advocate ever on gay issues to ever be elected as President...and THIS is how they support him?

Nope. Tired of their deviant needs being elevated to a deviant level of noise based on their disproportionately dominating our newsrooms.

tired of it

Tired of it

TIRED of it

TIRED. OF. IT!!!

WRB, you've been saying we're deviant for months. Way before the Warren thing, so don't use that as an excuse. You talk like a bigot and a homophobe, so own up to it.

That is completely false. What I specifically said is that the sexual conduct is deviant. I did not call any individual deviant. Perhaps, you are not use to folks using precise language when describing what it is that the group of individuals who call themselves gay have in common...it is a behavior..a sexual behavior, a deviant sexual behavior.

They are not bound together in terms of a collective humanity. Their sole commonality is a deviant behavior, just like prostitutes, whores, addicts, alcoholics, athletes, musicians, actors, artists.

It is not who they are. It is what they do. And what they do is engage in same gender sex, which is a deviant sexual behavior.

I do not talk like a bigot nor homophobe. I speak like an informed individual about a conduct that has been allowed to dominate our civil discourse and attempt to re-set what is stable& productive behavior as a fundamental building block for civilized societies.

Addressing those issues in a cogent and precise manner does not make me a bigot simply because it is uncommon for individuals to be able to have a well reasoned rational discourse on the topic.

I hate no one and I respect all individuals including those who engage in same gender sex.

What I will not do is concede to their political agenda. Nor be shouted down with inflammatory language that attacks me as the messenger because individuals are unable to prevail with an opposing point of view.

Nothing bigotted or homophobic about that at all. Rather, it takes strength of character to stand up and post an opposing view. Particularly, on this site where I am a minority and often times lone voice and the opposing view predominates at the stie.

What gays can't handle is the same inflammtory language being thrown right back at them.

I am literally applauding you!!! Say that!!!

Like my Mom says, "Two wrongs doesn't make a right!"

T.

That one is a fucking mess.

You right, but it does put folks on equal footing.

At what cost?

T.

The cost of silence being acceptance.
Moral courage demands the strength of character to speak out against wrong.

Sometimes you can be wrong by saying that something is wrong, when it isn't.

Please don't bask in the aura of self-aggrandizement. It's so not you.

Well blk sista, given that you think, truth is relative...surely you know the corollary is that wrong is relative as well...if your truth is relative so in the heck is everything else.

So,please don't attempt to project some sanctimonious ominiscient superiority.

It is just plain unbelievable.

The problem with Black people who bask in the same biased, hateful behavior is that we lose all moral authority or fairness arguments when we engage in it. It's going to come bite us in the ass later.

I take

it

you

personally

you know a lot

about that heartsandflowers.

Op-Ed Columnist
Who Wants to Kick a Millionaire?
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 20, 2008

DURING the Great Depression, American moviegoers seeking escape could ogle platoons of glamorous chorus girls in “Gold Diggers of 1933.” Our feel-good movie of the year is “Slumdog Millionaire,” a Dickensian tale in which we root for an impoverished orphan from Mumbai’s slums to hit the jackpot on the Indian edition of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.”


It’s a virtuoso feast of filmmaking by Danny Boyle, but it’s also the perfect fairy tale for our hard times. The hero labors as a serf in the toilet of globalization: one of those mammoth call centers Westerners reach when ringing an 800 number to, say, check on credit card debt. When he gets his unlikely crack at instant wealth, the whole system is stacked against him, including the corrupt back office of a slick game show too good to be true.

We cheer the young man on screen even if we’ve lost the hope to root for ourselves. The vicarious victory of a third world protagonist must be this year’s stocking stuffer. The trouble with “Slumdog Millionaire” is that it, like all classic movie fables, comes to an end — as it happens, with an elaborately choreographed Bollywood musical number redolent of “Gold Diggers of 1933.” Then we are delivered back to the inescapable and chilling reality outside the theater’s doors.

There is more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21ric...

Rikyrah: Can we get a little Temptations Christmas next time? I love when the guy sings Silent Night in falsetto!!!

The Temptations' Silent Night is so beautiful. Actually, so Spirit filled, so Holy!

Warrendefeds the invite to deliver the Inaugural Invocaion


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081221/ap_on_re_us...

It doesn't bother me at all about Warren giving the invocation. But Warren needs to just sit back and lay low like Rev. Wright did up until he (Wright) lost his fool mind at the National Press Club.

But Warren needs to just sit back and lay low



Like Bill Ayers did!

Exactly. But that is what PEO has to contend with by his selection.

Warren's got a Chrismas book on the Best sellers list right now. Any press will surely further aid sells.

I think the LGBT community need to lay low and get their shit together. They need a better plan than playing the VICTIM & BLAME game.

Yeah, I just have to agree though, life without purpose is unfulfilling. Waren wrote a very good insightful book. Made me take a vacation with a purpose.

I have come to realize that we are not human beings having a spiritual experience in this world, rather we are spiritual beings having a human experience.

I understand Obama reaching out to all those other folks in the nation who are also struggling with our collective humanity challenging our spirits.

Obama is soooo doing the right hing. We have to work on together to achieve greater things in those areas that we agree, and let the areas of disagreement fall to the way side. Which is why folks are sick of the cultural wars and moving forward focused instead on
feeding the poor, sheltering the impoverished and healing the ill while we build a stronger community based on COMMON goals.

We have no time to waste on divisiveness any longer, both the economy and planet are in peril...and no gay political issue will help resolve those issues.

So, onward we march ...some of us as christian soldiers, others of us as warriors for justice, peace and a better nation.

But all of us intently focused on what we can do rather than on what we do not agree on...just ain't got time for it, any longer.

We will not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

Well said, whiterose. Those who want to move forward with President-Elect Obama's vision will move forward, and those who choose to work own their own agendas will do so, but he will keep moving ever forward in consciousness.

I think Barack Obama does all he does because he is Black and not in spite of it. And that is what some folks can't handle.

Every time some group or individual gets all bent out of shape about his every word or deed only reflects the power this man has.
He's not the solver of all our problems; he's not the "Magical Negro."

AMEN!

For my weekly Sunday Shame post this week I wrote: My Christmas ends with alcohol: This looks at the stress women go through trying to make sure that the holiday is perfect for our families.

I closed my eyes andcried like I was his daughter: A poignant discussion of incest by a young black girl. It is unbelievably powerful (trigger warning).

womanistmusings, this spoken word was gut wrenching, heart rending, courageous. I don't think I've seen anything quite like this since The Vagina Monlouges.

I'm sending the link to my daughters, neices, sisters........ Thank you.

I couldn't help from crying!

It touched me deeply as well. I believe that the women that are performing spoken word are speaking so much truth. It is my mission to share their words with people. This one in particular hurt me but was so necessary.

I could hardly type ....I was crying so! I just can't comprehend it...

I have seen wayyy too many articles comparing Kennedy to Palin and all that embodies that NY Senate seat.

Kennedy, Palin treatment evidence of cultural divide

Kennedy and Elitism

Kennedy and Elitism, Cont'd

Caroline Kennedy's Senate quest: entitlement is the problem

Comparing someone of her stature to Sarah Palin and even to invoke JLo is rude IMO. I hate to watch this train wreck.

Ya know what the funny thing is?

THEY NEVER ONCE "PALINIZED" PALIN!!

Where was Geraldine Ferraro screaming that Palin wasn't ready on Day 1 and the country could not afford to have on the job training for her?

Her old ass was SILENT, said nothing, MUTE, volume = 0 on Palin, only to say it was 'great' another woman was in the running for VP.

So she needs to sit down in the Hovaround when it comes to Caroline Kennedy. A flake of Caroline's dandruff is more qualified than Sarah Palin on the WORST day.

Come on Town, you know why! Hillary's attack dogs out for fresh meat. She's an Obama ally not a Clintonista. If Hillbot gets confirmed, Kennedy is in and will probably run for President in 2016. Kennedy is abundantly qualified to be a Senator and she actually lived in NY. Anyway, they can crow and carp all they want. They have ZERO credibility.

O course it is riDICulous...Palintizing people is the new way to diminish them and not recognize the merits of their individual achievement. They did the same thing with Obama when McCain o so cynically selected Palin to be his VP....we were subjected to endless rebuttals of she is as qualified as Obama!

Co-sign. I think that this is effing ridiculous and DIVISIVE.

I'm still digesting the world's greatest ponzi scheme ;the Madoff story ,(link from I.H.T)
Everyone knows that big corporations never complained about Corporate Welfare, but I wonder where Joe the Plumber and all the "little people" who always mouthed the nonsense about Govt=evil, will fall on this? Now that that the uber rich/smart/connected have gotten burned, (e.e.g not those ignorant fannnie mae-subprime, bad credit type people :-) is regulation, Kensian economics repectable now?

O you bet it is, with Obama's new appointment of Schapiro at the helm of the SEC

Read it and weep, how the SEC took a vacation and let the banks fail, and how Cox loosen the rules so the banks could invest in credit default swaps, mortgage backed securities and not have billions on hand to cover the risk...it is a tale of the greatest banking scam, corruption and greed run amuck.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/...





This article was published in NYT in October about how a meeting in 2004 between Cox and the five BIG banks contributed to the mess we are in now:


"They wanted an exemption for their brokerage units from an old regulation that limited the amount of debt they could take on. The exemption would unshackle billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on their investments. Those funds could then flow up to the parent company, enabling it to invest in the fast-growing but opaque world of mortgage-backed securities; credit derivatives, a form of insurance for bond holders; and other exotic instruments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03se...

Thanks Rikrah for that wonderful song...it gets the yuletide spirit bouncing and skipping for sure.

I really like that new BigBand CD by Tony Bennet featuring Count Basie...

Our PBS channel in Madison, WI has been playing the best of Andy Williams' Xmas specials. I used to watch them with my family during the Sixties, too. He stopped doing them about the time Claudine Longet, his soon- to-be ex-wife, supposedly shot that skier, 'Spider' Sabich.

Those were the days when people sang. Nothing against someone like Beyonce, Usher, or Mary J. But you dont see family-type variety shows any more of this caliber.

Yes, blksista...those were the best...I have fond memories of those shows as well.

Your parents would get all snuggly on the sofa.

You kids would get all quiet, listening, fascinated, and not asking questions for once.

You folks would make popcorn or pound cake and hot eggnog to help get in the mood.

Yes.

Almost like gathering around a fire.

Yep, very heartwarming memories...especially since my folks are no longer alive.

My sweet dear parents aren't either. The holidays are a tough time without them. I miss them so! I have such wonderful memories of us as a family during the holidays!

My mother would start baking days ahead of time. And when she make a cake.....you got to lick the spoon! Yay! lol

Bowl too!! I licked a many, lol
And my mom made samples...did yours?

Basically, she put enough batter in a little pan to make a pancake size cake.

yummy, yummy...it was done way earlier than the cake!

Ah Yes! And she made Tea Cakes too!


They were the best...soft & ever so good. Yum Yum!

My family watched those specials, too. I have to give a shout-out to Johnny Mathis for his timeless holiday songs. Yes, those were the days of family entertainment.

p.s. I remember the scandal involving Claudine Longet and her skier boyfriend. That was big time drama back then. LOL

Yes, Williams, Perry Como and Nat King Cole's "The Christmas Song" were the rule in our house.

I remember the Claudine onget scandal.

Do you remember "Sing Along With Mitch" Miller? (Telling my age now :-)) )

I have a feeling we're going to see a resurgence of family type variety shows in he coming years; and hopefully more diverse.

I was a little girl when Mitch Miller was on. I do remember Leslie Uggams, too.

Those were the days when black folks called each other up on the phone: "There's a colored girl on TV right now. Hurry." Channel whatever.

I am so through with reality shows. Once one caught on, everyone had to have their fifteen or twenty minutes. Ugh.

So was I. And you know it gir; we'd be soooo excited about seeing someone (Black) who looked like us on the tube.

The reality is that reality shows have lulled America into a deep sleep. PEO is right.; we'e fallen asleep behind the wheel.

rikyrah: LOVE this song 2! Thanks for "bringin' in" the Christmas spirit! :>) :>)


Did you REQUEST this one?:

This Christmas - Donny Hathaway

ENJOY!!! The scenes are VERY NICE!! :>) :>)


(HAVE YOURSELF A MERRY LITTLE CHRISTMAS) - LUTHER VANDROSS [HEAD BOW]

ENJOY!! :>) :>)

Luther Vandross - The Christmas Song


Yolanda Adams - Oh, Come, All Ye Faithful



CeCe Winans - "Oh, Holy Night"


ENJOY!!! :>) :>) Got carried away!! :>) :>)

Thanks GreenLady!

I loved it! Donny Hathaway sings "This Christmas" so beautiful. It makes me have such happy thoughts.

Have you heard Christina Aguilara sing "Oh Holy Night"? I swear, That voice sounds like a sista! It brings tears to my eyes!

Justice58: YES! :>) There were so many variations available. :>)

Christina Aguilera - O Holy Night (The kind of Christmas album)


ENJOY!! :>) :>)

MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR to YOU & YOURS!! :>)

God Bless Y'all! :>) I'm just sayin. . . . . :>) :>)

GreenLady, you just bring on some LOOFA!!!!! Hee, hee!

spirit: LOOFA?? Thank you. :>) :>)

I am looking for the Christmas song "Father Father Father" by Kool and the Gang. I remember hearing when I was a very little girl. It was a B-side of a Kool and the Gang song I don't remember. I've have been looking on and off many years for that song. Does anyone know that song.

Ijf: Me 2! :>) :>) NOPE! Cain't find [Father! Father!] Sorry! :>(

Here's a substitution. :>) :>)

Kool And The Gang Celebration

ENJOY!! :>) :>)


Whoooo! Hooo! :>) ***dancin' [70's style]***

rikyrah: Sunday, DECEMBER 21, 2008; DAY -30 On His "JOURNEY TO JANUARY! :>)

1. WORD(s) of the DAY: TAKING A LITTLE RESPITE FROM THE TRANSITION TRAIL

2. HEADLINE(s):

a) OBAMA Increases Job Goal To 3 Million

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama has increased his employment goal with the nation's economic outlook worsening, seeking to create or save 3 million jobs in the next two years instead of the 2.5 million he proposed last month.

Obama set the more ambitious target earlier this week after meeting with top economic advisers who cautioned that the nation's unemployment rate could exceed 9 percent given the current pace of job losses, Obama transition officials said Saturday.

During the presidential campaign, Obama pledged to create or save 1 million jobs. He increased that goal to 2.5 million over two years just last month.

Obama and his family traveled Saturday to his home state of Hawaii for a two-week vacation. But advisers were using Obama's guidance as a roadmap for a draft stimulus package to have ready when he returns on Jan. 2, advisers said.

Obama met with Vice President-elect Joe Biden and his economic leadership team Tuesday in Chicago.

Transition officials said Christina Romer, an economics professor who Obama has chosen as chair of his Council of Economic Advisers, opened the meeting by arguing that historical data and wide-ranging expert opinions suggest that upcoming economic problems could be more severe than anything the country has faced over the past half century. She said the country is likely to lose another 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next year without significant action.

Biden and Obama responded by pushing for a more ambitious jobs plan, driven by federal investments in health care, education and energy that could have a stimulative effect and lay the ground work for long term reform and a more sustainable economy. Ideas included weatherizing 1 million homes, shifting to a paperless health system, investing in disease prevention and modernizing schools.

THERE IS MORE.

b) Vice President-Elect Biden SPEAKS:
Sunday Dec. 21, 2008
All Times Eastern7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
10:30 AM

Vice President-elect Joe Biden appears on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos.

c) Biden gives first post-election interview

In newly released parts of an interview with ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that will air on Sunday, Vice President-elect Joe Biden said his wife, Jill, a community college professor, will become one of the few second ladies to work while her husband is in office.

"She's been contacted by several four-year colleges and community colleges in the Washington area. She very much likes the community college student body, the people coming back in their late 20s, early 30s," Biden said, according to early excerpts Stephanopoulos posted online.

"And so I don't know where she's going to do it. And this probably will not be full-time. It will probably be part-time," Biden said.

"But, look, I think it's very important she have and maintain her own life, her own identity. And she'll be a very active second lady. She'll be very active. But I think it's important. It matters to her."

Biden also said he thinks his wife's decision is "a good example to set."

More from the excerpts:

On why Biden still hasn't resigned from his senate seat, to which Delaware's governor has named a replacement, Biden's close friend and longtime adviser, Ted Kaufman:

BIDEN: "Two reasons. One is that, from my perspective, I shouldn't acknowledge it, but being sworn in for the seventh time as a United States senator from Delaware, the greatest honor I've ever had is the people of Delaware electing me. And , and it will in no way effect the seniority of the person who will follow me, number one. Number two, there was a period there when it was thought that it may be useful for me to be in the Senate, in terms of some of the votes that were going to be cast in the Senate that may have been very close, that would have been consistent with our incoming administration's position that I could have been voting on those. It turned out that did not occur. So they're the two reasons why I didn't..."

GEORGE: "But you're not going to stay on and try to preside... "

BIDEN: " No, no, no, no, no, absolutely not. I've already — if I haven't done it — to be honest with you, I think I've done it, but if I haven't done it, I've signed a letter, will sign a letter saying, notwithstanding the fact I'll be sworn in the first day, I have no intention of staying up until the day that I am sworn in as vice president. Secondly, I yield responsibility to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to John Kerry. No, I have, no. "

On whether his son, Beau, 38, will run for his seat in 2010:

"Look, he's attorney general of the state of Delaware. They're looking at him, he's getting great grades. This is in terms of what he's done. He's doing it," Biden said. "You know, his judgments, good or bad, aren't because his name is Biden. I mean, people can judge him based on what he's done. "

On whether Biden supports Caroline Kennedy being appointed to Sen. Hillary Clinton's New York Senate seat:

"Look, I love Caroline Kennedy. I think Caroline Kennedy is an incredibly talented woman. I think she's an incredibly talented person who has a lot to offer," Biden said, adding that the decision is "for the people of New York to, to make ... For the governor, and, eventually, within two years, the people of New York to decide whether the governor's judgment was correct."


THAT'S ALL FOR NOW!! :>)

Biden may come out with some unvarnished truths too frequently, but overall I LIKE the guy. What I liek about Biden is the relationships he has with his family and especially his wife and his mother's peeps, The Finegans.

I love the fact that he understands and respects Jill's need to be her own person and have something that is hers that is gratifying and he in no way feels that is threatening to him nor unseemly for her as 'second Lady' (first time I heard that one!)

WRB: YES! I love his "wifey LOVE" also! :>) :>)

I needed a laugh this weekend, and this did it for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_0JiIIsWd0

my all time favorite videos of children dancing to beyonce songs are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hexHz_67GcM <little girl dancing to crazy in love

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPfZQvp1faM <little boy dancing to irresistible

I just pray my kids can speak in coherent sentences before they start shaking it around the house

AHAHAHAHAHA, that baby got the BEyonce BOUNCE goin ON!!!

in a diaper, no less....ctfu!!

every time i watch, regardless of how funny it still is, i always think, how irresponsible to house your child in the entertainment system underneath the tv.. call me overly cautious. and that little boy.. he sure liked to drop it like it was hot

O, that 'ENTRANCE' was a HOOT!! You know that man is crazy!! I bet the momma don't know about it. I hope he does not use it in any other manner to lure her.
Cause you know he told her she had to be behing the curtain to make an entrance like BEY.. can't you just here him sayin:
".you can't jsut walk out...you have to COME out of NOWHERE. and surrrprise the audience'

Black folks are crazy sick!! innovation that borders on insanity.

I am with you, though. I would not ever ever never have put my baby behind that cabinet door...imagine how he had to coax her into that intially...you know he used her hearing her FAVORITE song to do it. especially as it had to be pitch black inside that cabinet.

I hope she does not grow up to 'come out of closets doing burlesque to perform for her sugar daddy or on a pole!

That lil boy was ...just too much for words...I just found it incongruent to think of a man droppin it like he was hot, y'know?

IOW's what does a man have to drop?...hehehehehe

That was neat Hal!1

I forwarded it to a few folks with Season's Greetings

BlkSista writes:

What you wrote was not scientific, but simply bent to support your narrow point of view. They are not logical, just propaganda. And I reject it, just as many gays (not just the 'handful' that I know) would reject these assessments of what their lifestyle truly is. Signorile speaks for himself, and suddenly he's the spokesperson for every gay? Ha...!

C'mon BlkSista,

I did not bend anything to support my view. You challenged my assertion that loyalty was important in gay relationships not fidelity. You asserted that THE view was 25-30 years old. I countered your assertion with recent quotes from other homosexuals including signerile, which would be ADDED to the original assertion not BENT. The viewpoint is not narrow, it is simply a truism and has been in perpetuity when it comes to homosexual relationships.

Gays may reject it, all they want but studies which are SCIENTIFIC , prove otherwise. Which is why I cited the Center for Diseases Control, how you think that is unscientific is beyond me. One thing is for certain, it is not a personal viewpoint of mine, nor a personal anecdote of yours, but actual honest data where thousands of homosexuals were surveyed. So, if you choose not to beleive it that's fine. What you can't do however is claim it is MY biased perception. Because that is false. As long as you are unable to put for any valid scientific documentation or research to renounce that data, it is only you who is bending the facts to support your narrow view.

You can reject it all you like, but the facts are clear...promiscuity is the hallmark of homosexual relationships....another citation for you:

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 17, 2006

The syphilis rate among U.S. men soared 81 percent between 2000 and 2004, primarily as a result of increases in reported cases among homosexual males, federal health officials reported yesterday.

While the rate among men nearly doubled during that time -- from 2.6 per 100,000 to 4.7 -- the syphilis rate among women fell from 1.7 to 0.8 per 100,000 from 2000 to 2003. It remained stable in 2004, marking the end of a 13-year decline.

"The vast majority of the increase is attributable to a resurgence of syphilis among men who have sex with men ... syphilis rates continue to increase among [this group]," said Dr. J.F. Beltrami and other authors of a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention.

hal: Good find! :>) Little cutie! :>)

Annnnnnnd, I'm determined to get soma those "moves!" :>) ***shakin' my head*** :>)