Christian Wedlock.

QUESTION:
Can a woman have more than two husbands?

ANSWER:
No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man.

1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III).
Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria).

Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry.

1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611.
What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows:

A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and courtesan/prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.

2nd PAGE.

Luke 1:28 King James 1611.
Luke 1:31 King James 1611.
Luke 1:28-35 King James 1611.
In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son, the father being God the Father. And when Mary’s womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a woman’s firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God.

Luke 2:23 King James 1611.
Exodus 13:2&12 King James 1611.
And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman.

Matthew 13:53-56 King James 1611.
Mark 6:1-4 King James 1611.
And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus’ brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus’ sisters.

Matthew 1:6&16 King James 1611.
Luke 3:23&31 King James 1611.
Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King David’s son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King David’s son Nathan.

Genesis 38:16-18 King James 1611.
“Came in unto her” means congress or carnal copulation. In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons. Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils. Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a payment of his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her. Tamar had been in wedlock with Judah’s first son, who God had killed for being wicked. Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judah’s second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar. Judah then pledged Tamar that she could marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his pledge and forbade his third son to marry Tamar. When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry. Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry. Tamar came and Judah demanded that Tamar tell him by which man she was with child. Tamar then produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child. Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his pledge and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar could have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her. Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah.

3rd PAGE.

Genesis 1:27-28 King James 1611.
Genesis 2:7&18-19 King James 1611.
Genesis 3:20 King James 1611.
The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve. Adam means “man” in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means “life” in the hebrew tongue. Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life.

Romans 7:4-6 King James 1611.
Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband.

1 Timothy 3:2 King James 1611.
A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 3:12 King James 1611.
A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

Titus 1:6 King James 1611.
An elder can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 5:9 King James 1611.
Elders are not to provide for widows under three score years of age who have only had one husband.

The Estate of Marriage. Martin Luther 1522.
Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.

To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow. That example is one wife. The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband. If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.

Luke 1:35&41 King James 1611.
Mary had carnal copulation with three men. The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary. Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards. After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.

4th PAGE.

Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands. That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth.

Matthew 19:11-12 King James 1611.
The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. Although do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was not in wedlock with any woman.

But the New Testament gives a woman three choices.

1st Choice:
Virgin woman without wedlock.

2nd Choice:
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child.
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

3rd Choice:
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time. Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands.

But what do you expect. After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a “Lutheran” and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a “Lutheran Church”. So what do all northern europeans called themselves? Lutherans! Ask them what church they belong to? The Lutheran Church!

A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter. But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denomination’s discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time.

Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament. Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.

5th PAGE.

Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path.

That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world.

And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world. This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact.

The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a woman’s option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man.

Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon). 388 B.C.
League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan). 1851 A.D.
Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock. The Spartans and the Mohawk.

Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and history’s final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C.

And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked France’s attempt to seize New York so as to split England’s colonies in twain.

Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males. It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism.

Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock. The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant.

Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female. The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together.

THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MOHAMMEDRY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POLYGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTI.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MONKERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATI.

6th PAGE.

CAPITAL LAWES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOHAWK.

1st. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death.

2nd. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall maliciously and on purpose deny that any Mohawk person may have arms for his defence suitable to his condition and as allowed by law; he shall be put to death.

3rd. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man’s necessary or just defence, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.

4th. If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by guile or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death.

5th. If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned.

6th. If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished.

7th. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

8th. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.

9th. If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmother’s right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death.

10th. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely attempt, to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death.

11th. If any child or children, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child or those children so offending shall be put to death.

12th. If any stubborn and rebellious son or sons, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son or sons will not hearken unto them, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son or those sons so offending shall be put to death.

7th PAGE.

13th. If any unmarryed man above twentyeight years of age and under fortytwo years of age shall maliciously and on purpose refuse wedlock for over fourteen days with any marryed woman under sixtythree years of age, said marryed woman having borne a son, or unmarryed woman under sixtythree years of age; he shall be put to death.

14th. If any person shall maliciously and on purpose deny any marryed woman wedlock with two husbands, said marryed woman having borne a son, or any unmarryed woman wedlock with one husband; he shall be put to death.

15th. If any marryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, other than his wife; he shall be put to death.

16th. If any marryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, other than her two husbands or one husband; she shall be put to death.

17th. If any unmarryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case he shall not be punished.

18th. If any unmarryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case she shall not be punished.

19th. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.

20th. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

They’re learning to wince at the term “civil unions” and getting squeamish about calling it by it’s real name, “second class marriage for second class citizens” The truth is dawning on them that they’re trapped into apologizing for a party of bigots. Second class citizenship is all the Republicans or Democrats have to offer.

The implications of supporting bigoted candidates like Obama or McCain are beginning to sink in. It turns out that when they pandered to christian bigots, and both continue to do so, it wasn’t a mistake after all, but a strategy, the same strategy used by Bill Clinton and George Bush.

Apologists for the Democratic Party certainly have their work cut out for them. They have to dream up some scare tactic to frighten the clueless into voting for bigots because McCain, Clinton and Obama agree on most things. They both support NAFTA, a union busting measure and a rolling environmental disaster. They both voted to cut taxes for the rich and welfare for the poor. They both oppose socialized medicine.

All three will continue the genocide in Iraq for years. More GI’s and more Iraqis will die. All three support zionist ethnic cleansing and apartheid. More Palestinians will die. McCain says he’ll “never surrender”. Obama promises to invade Pakistan. They’re lunatics. Their wars for oil companies are killing people.

Obama’s Party refused to repeal DADT and DOMA. Then they shredded ENDA and finally dumped it and the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill in the garbage. McCain’s party, who are also against GLBT equality, happily supported the Democrats.

So in 2008 the only thing Democrat apologists can come up with is “McCain will appoint Bogeymen to the Supreme Court” to gull the clueless into voting Democratic. It’s not very effective when you remember that the California Supreme Court, with a six to one Republican majority, voted for full marriage equality. The US Supremes who’ve occasionally voted for us but only when our movement had become powerful enough to compel them. The courts main role is to protect the rich, and if they have to throw us a bone or two they will, but that happens ONLY when we force them to. It’s unity our strength that wins, and that has nothing to do with the political makeup of the courts, the Congress or which lunatic is prowling around in the White House.

In this world were all interconnected in one way or another and people need to stop viewing our humanity as
some sort of eccentricity. Much too often thought history many GLBT people have put aside their needs and dignity for the betterment of other causes and look were it has gotten us. This is year 2008.

WAKE UP & SMELL THE WORLD SWIRLING DOWN THE DRAIN.

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

me, me, me, me, me, me, me.

blah, blah, blah.

me.

blah.

you?

blah.

gay.

yum.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/331.html

McCain is asked why he voted TWICE against a Congressional investigation into the massive failure of the Army Corps of Engineers-built levees in New Orleans.

First, he says he supported it. Then he says he doesn’t know anything about it.

Then, just seconds later, he claims to know all about it and that the proposal is too flawed to merit his support.

Which story is true?

It doesn’t seem to matter to this guy.

Is it possible we’re on the verge of getting an even worse president than Bush?

Did you mean 101 posts later?

— 0 —

Some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing!

Thanks for the advise on ‘paper=bound’ (sic) versions of dictionaries. Did you get all your ‘paper-bound’ (sic) versions from Wal-Mart then?

Here is a NICE clip about your hero:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/325.html

(He’ll sure make a great president with Zionist Lieberman pulling the strings.)

And another one about your current C.i.C.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pvWCLobIlM

No, blah, blah, blah.

No, I disagree, blah, blah, blah.

No, I am not a single issue voter, and blah, blah, blah.

No, I am smarter.

No, me.

No, I am smartest of them all.

No, I am bitch.

Blah, blah blah.

100 posts later, and the ego remains the central issue.

Don’t worry baby. I’ll take advice on how to be well read from someone less windy than you.

kisses

ps: The New Republic is tired. You could at least read The National Review.

Ooooo. You is well read. Goody for you! What other advice do you have for us imbeciles?

“Clinton opposes same-sex marriage but favors civil unions in which gay couples receive full recognition and benefits. She says that “marriage has always been province of the states” and advocates repeal of a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. In the U.S. Senate, she opposed amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. While she has solicited and received the support of gay and lesbian groups, many gay activists were alarmed over her March 2007 comment that the morality of homosexuality was up “to others to conclude.” She later released a statement saying that she does not believe homosexuality is immoral. In an April 2008 interview, Clinton said she would change federal tax policies and immigration laws to eliminate disparities affecting same-sex couples.”

Hmm.. seems basically the same stand as Obama’s.

I am not voting for Obama because he does not support civil and equal rights for the LGBT community.

Race has never been an issue for me and never will.

Want another resason not to vote for Obama? He came out in support of FISA today, totally capitulating to the Republicans and we will now give Telecoms and the Bush administration Amnesty for breaking the law all while trashing the very concept of the 4th Amendment.

Obama has now truely shown his real colours in just one day. I will not vote for him or anyone of his ilk.

Things will apparently have to get MUCH worse in the USA before they have a chance to get better. The only way to get Obama and the rest of the Democrats to listen to us is to withold our vote for them until they do.

For all you Obama apologists: Just remember this, your support for him has not changed his mind about supporting you. Sort of like how a loyal child will still love their parents, even though they mentally, physically and spiritually abuse them.

I’m done. Thanks for the conversation. Hopefully Church-lady can learn something but I doubt it.

Sincerely,

James

I really don’t care if you vote for Obama or not.

Please either learn to read or wait until the adults are done talking. Your racism is so deep that you have a difficult time handling complex topics.

kisses

As I said, I will vote for Obama. No question. I would be more comfortable doing so if he did not have a history of exploiting black homophobia to gain votes. And I do not understand why people are comfortable with high ranking officials in the DNC getting away with trashing gays, just because the ones doing the trashing are black.

Will you ever admit that you are every bit as racist as your detractors claim?

Who wants to sweep it under the rug? Can you point that out in anything I’ve said that even implies that?

As for what you are looking for in a candidate for president, good luck. Politicians are very good at making promises and breaking them. If you are looking for a mainstream candidate, who wants to be a power-breaker (ie- president) to support gay rights, then you are smoking something illegal. The history of minority rights in this country is a history of small baby steps, and those small steps are usually taken by folk outside of the mainstream.

James

I would say that Catholics than more antigay than nonCatholics for a huge number of reasons. I would point to the Pope’s statements as evidence, sure, but mostly those that were made before he became pope: he is a dangerous extremist on the issue, and it speaks very badly of the chcurch leadership that they elected him. But I would point to polls, literature produced by Catholic laypeople, and further anecdotal evidence. I have no doubt at all that Catholics (white or not) are more bigoted against gay people than nonCatholics.

Would you disagree?

Of course, the comparison is silly: Catholicism is a set of values, one of which is the hatred and subjugation of sexual minorities. Black people obviously do not have the sort of shared values that Catholics do. But blacks do attend church in higher numbers than most Americans, and tend to attend churches adamant in their opposition to gay rights. Black Americans also suffer disproportionately from poverty and lack of education, and ignorance always walks hand in hand with bigotry. The lack of opportunity for black men has created a ritualized hostility toward femininity in black culture which has led to blatent displays of hatred toward gay men in black art and culture. These factors are cultural, not racial, but they exist.

As Donna Brazile has admitted and supported, they do not equate Civil Rights with Gay Rights.
How dare we(GLBT) even think of doing that! To do so is anathema to them.

Of course, I never said anything that implied you thought there was no homophobia in the black community or that I did not believe that the gays had important black advocates.

I would say that where we differ is that I do not want to sweep black homophobia under the rug and I want some promises from a presidential candidate who has already bowed down to it that he recognizes that doing so was wrong and that he won’t do it again.

Why am I wrong to want that?

Your blanket condemnation of the entire Black Caucus for comments or actions of a few is just one more example. Its Friday and you have all weekend to think about this: try judging each individual for the acts of that individual and not leap to the conclusion as you do in No. 76 above “that African Americans are more opposed to fair treatment for gays and lesbians than most Americans are.” Contrary to your delusion, that statement is not grounded in reality.

Let me see if this example makes sense to you: The Pope is white and he is staunchly opposed to gay rights (rooted in his Christianity). Now would it be logical to say that Catholic whites are homophobic because of the word or actions of one person? Obviously not. You look at the source, the historical context, and the cultural setting in which the opinion is made. Thats called analysis. Try it this weekend before you continue to leap to illogical conclusions and blanket assertions against an entire race of people.

No. There is no one here arguing there is not homophobia in the back community. Let me rephrase that: I’m not making that argument and there is anything I’ve written that implies that. What I have said is alongside that homophobia there are actions/movements that are gay friendly. There are other folk beside West and Dyson, bell hooks and Eddie Glaude come to mind. And for the record: R Kelly also got a standing o and an Image Award.

Our difference comes down to this: you want to focus only on black homohphobia because you think it runs rampant in the community. I acknowledge and condemn the homophobia but also make the point it is not as pervasive as you assume.

James

If anyone has ever argued that blacks were primarily responsible for homophobia, that would be ridiculous. It is also ridiculous that gay advocacy organizations and journalists have not taken on the Black Caucus of the DNC for a) opposing efforts to raise the number of gay delegates; and b) successfully basing their opbjections on the idea that equality for gays and lesbians is offensive to the history of the civil rights movement.

Moreover, there are 26 states which have bans on gay marriage. Did all of those states pass these bans because of black homophobia? Of course not. And what about the gay-bashing, hate crimes, and murders committed against gays, are the majority of those committed by blacks? Was Matthew Sheppard or Lawrence King murdered by homophobic blacks?

The point is there are close-minded people in all groups (even narrow-minded gays) and we can spend all day going back and forth on this most asinine debate, but the bottom line is where does it get you at the end of the day.

If you are a progressive Democrat, a more constructive discussion would be on how we can organize and change the hearts and minds of people so that equality and civil rights are expanded to all historically excluded and marginalized groups.

But of course, its easier and par for the course to think that all problems are caused by some other group of people who are different than you. And in America, it is always the blacks who cause all the problems, from crime, drugs, poverty..and now homophobia.

To quote En Vogue:
“Free your mind and the rest will follow, be colorblind, dont be so shallow.”

I think we disagree on the interpretation of the polling data more than anything else. Gotta point out that the NAACP also gave Isaiah Washington an Image Award in 2007 after his tirade at the Golden Globes. And he got a standing ovation.

West and Dyson are great, but they are are also unusual, which is why they have been praised for their support of the gay community. Thei is like arguing that blacks aren’t especially homophobic, then praising Obama to the skies because he said the word “gay” at Ebenezer Baptist Church. If there wasn’t a problem there, it wouldn’t be a big deal.

We disagree on these points:

1. yes blacks do not support same sex marriage in the same numbers as whites, but it is overstating the case to say “African Americans are more opposed to fair treatment for gays and lesbians than most Americans are.” Especially, as shown by Mindovermatter, that the NAACP wrote a brief in support of the same-sex marriage case in CA. The NAACP also came out an supported ENDA.

2. This leads to the hostility point in the Democratic Party. There is no polling to prove that at all. And as for calling out black homophobes, you are simply not paying attention. People such as Cornel West and Michael Eric Dyson have made it a point to be critical of black folk who are homophobiac.

James

I absolutely agree that a more informed and more nuanced discussion is always a better one. I understand that many people think that racism fuels a perception that blacks are more homophobic than whites. I believe that there is truth to this, even though no actual evidence supports the idea. There is substantial evidence, through polls on issues ranging from marriage rights to equality in general, that African Americans are more opposed to fair treatment for gays and lesbians than most Americans are. More troubling is how much more hostile they are to us than any other major constituency of the Democratic Party. Most troublingly, I think people are afraid to call out black homophobes because they know that people will regard them as racists or as elitists. If Leah Daughtry were white, she would have been fired for her bigotry by now.

Good questions. Can’t answer them; however, I do think the black folk are more homophobiac line gets a lot of traction because it is true the polls do show that blacks , when comapred to whites, have a higher disdain for same-sex marriage. However, being against same-sex marriage doesn’t make one homophobiac. Mainstream pols like Clinton and Obama are agianst same-sex marriage but no one would accuse either one of hating gays.

In short, I think it’s more than fair to address homophobia in the black community; however, what is also fair is to discuss it with nuance.

It really would be nice if people spoke from an informed position rather than from knee-jerk ignorance. But this site certainly shatters the stereotype about gays being more informed and intelligent.

That’s a valid point. However, I think that members of protected groups are in general more supportive of legislation against discrimination than members of majority groups are. Most blacks do not object on principle to hate crime legislation; many whites do. I think this poll says more about African American comfort with mechanisms for addressing discrimination than it does with opposition to bigotry against gay and trans people. Note that we are dealing with laws that “include” gays and lesbians: do you think they would support these laws if they did not also include people of color? Do you believe that they would not be more supportive of hate crime and anti-discrimination legislation that does not include sexual minorities?

If you are going to cite those polls, you should also cite how those same polls show how blacks are more likely than whites to support anti-discrimination laws and hate crime legislation that includes gays and lesbians.

I will absolutely vote for Obama. I would be a lot more comfortable doing it if he would:

A) Apologize for McClurkin- state that he was morally wrong to put bigots over their victims and promise that he will never, ever again pander to homophobes to win votes.

B) Denounce the attacks on gays that the Black Caucus of the DNC has been guilty of. Denounce Leah Daughtry and Donna Brazile, and anyone else who says that comparisons between the civil rights struggles of gays and African Americans are offensive. Pledge that people who hold that view will not have posts in his cabinet.

C) Show up at a fucking pride event.

D) Acknowledge that his standard issue statement on gay marriage is incomplete at best. It’s fine with me that he thinks states should be free to grant marriage equity in a variety of ways. It is not fine that he ignores that most states are using that freedom to push us further and further from equity. Shouldn’t the federal government have a role there?