Barack Obama, Donnie McClurkin And the Limits Of Tolerance

Trying to run a campaign that's a step above the fray -- that's higher than the interest group balkanization that characterizes our modern politics -- is not easy. Values often compete.

Gospel singer Donnie McClurkin is very popular among black Christians in South Carolina. Obama's success in South Carolina is predicated on his ability to convince these voters that he is temperamentally conservative like them, not Muslim, and electable.

McClurkin happens to hold a traditional American evangelical view of homosexuality. He is a Pentecostal minister.

Is McClurkin popularity and willingness to embrace Obama -- a staunch supporter of gay right's -- more important than the sensitivies of Obama's gay donors? As of this writing, that's up in the air -- the Politico's Ben Smith reports on a calm-the-waters conference call that David Plouffe has to take time from his campaign manager duties to attend.

There's a legitimate conflict here: in Obama's vision of America, are anti-gay views acceptable? Does Obama, as a modernist evangelical, accept the support of those Christians who believe that homosexuality is a curse? Politically, does McClurkin gospel message -- and the way it helps validate Obama's religious identity -- trump the parochial concerns of an interest group? And why did a campaign staffer fail to search McClurkin name in Wikipedia? And does the Democratic political class include a space for people who think homosexuality is immoral? And can any candidate win the gay vote and the conservative African American vote at the same time in the same state with the same message?

Fortunately for the Obama campaign, virtually no one in South Carolina is paying attention to this controversy. The press has barely touched on the story.

Comments

There has not been a peep from the gay community on Hillary's endorsement by anti-gay black ministers. This is a terrible double standard. Hillary never has had the guts to say the word "gay" in any speech she ever gave to a broad audience; she saves it for fundraisers to gay civil rights group. In Obama's first speech to a national audience, when no one would have demanded that he address the point, he did anyway on his own, because that's where his heart is. He famously said, "We have gay friends in the Red states," trying to get everyone to see the humanity in others.
When we start judging candidates by the personal views of people who just get up on stage on sing for them, we've really lost our way

Posted by stan | October 23, 2007 5:22 PM

Hillary has been endorsed by Rev. Harold Mayberry, who's "preached against homosexuality." And the Gay Community is quiet about that and now they are jumping in on Obama...can someone explain to me the reasoning behind gay community kissing up to the Clintons regardless all their antigay policies but Obama is their for them to bash...please stop the double standard

Posted by Emmy | October 23, 2007 5:22 PM

First, there is a HUGE difference between receiving an endorsement (for which presumably one did not ask) and actually sharing the stage with someone. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't really matter what happens in SC -- which will probably support the Republican nominee in the general election. I believe this will cost Obama votes in other states. And while I admit to being a rabid supporter of Hillary Clinton, I have long hoped that Obama would be her running mate: not anymore! He has made a serious blunder!

Posted by Clay | October 23, 2007 5:30 PM

Look. I think we all need to keep this in perspective. The president of the U.S is not just protector of the gays, hes is also the defender of them that are straight, Christian, Jewish or the color red. So if you are gay, are you saying that you are willing to risk not getting your fellow troops out Iraq,reform immigration and health care just because a man who says used to be gay says its a choice instead inheriting it? Its this worth not voting for someone who is a uniter? Obama is not just interested in uniting gays, he is interested in uniting America even people who may not agree with his views. You knew he was a Christian, right? So do not expect him to change the great person that he is just for the convenience of the gay community. He needs your vote but never at the expense of violating his own consciousness.

Posted by James | October 23, 2007 5:54 PM

A huge difference? First, they're not "sharing the stage"...Obama isn't attending the concerts.
Second...so I guess it's okay to accept (and trumpet in a press release!) the endorsement of a homophobic pastor, but that's not as bad as a homophobic singer in one of your events. Uhh...okay.

Posted by rashomon | October 23, 2007 5:55 PM

I think gay activists should be focused in on which candidate brought them the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell instead of which candidate demands ideolgical purity from its singers. Gay activists taking things too far is a major reason we lost in '04. By pushing gay marriage in people's faces so much in an election year (remember Gavin Newsom marrying gays in early '04 in SF?), they spurred all those ballot initiatives like in Ohio that got evangelicals pumped up to vote. Kerry might have won Ohio and the presidency had it not been for that. Now I support gay rights strongly, but these folks need to learn from the pro-lifers, who have been able to dangerously chip away at choice by embracing incremental steps instead of revolutionary, in-your-face change. By acting this way, the gay activists are setting back their own cause and the whole progressive agenda.

Posted by RKA | October 23, 2007 5:58 PM

My god people, can't the man associate with those whom he disagrees with? Isn't that what we always say we want in a leader? Someone who is willing to listen to all sides? Obamas record on gay rights and his willingness to bring the issue up no matter what crowd he is in front of speaks volumes about his character that no other top tier candidate can match.

Leave the man alone, he is not embracing McClurkin or his way of thinking, he is trying to reach out to those who are normally ignored by the Democratic party and perhaps he can persuade a few conservative folks to come around to the progressive agenda of the Democratic party--isn't that really something that should be celebrated?

Cut him some slack, he is sharing the stage with a fellow citizen of this country, regardless of how backward his views may be, would you rather Obama cancel and have Huckabee do it instead? They'll already vote for him, they'll already agree with him, let Obama challenge these people to rise up!

Posted by Matt | October 23, 2007 6:06 PM

what i find interesting is where was all the so called outrage when this happened:

Hillary celebrates endorsement of anti-gay Reverend who compared homosexuality to thievery
Edited on Mon Oct-22-07 06:51 PM by jefferson_dem
Rev. Harold R. Mayberry, senior pastor at First African Methodist Episcopal Church in Oakland...

***

Religious groups on common ground
Many faiths oppose same-sex marriages
Don Lattin, Tyche Hendricks, Cicero Estrella, Vanessa Hua, Chronicle Staff Writers
Sunday, March 14, 2004

Like most religious opponents of same-sex marriage, the Rev. Harold Mayberry, pastor of the First African Methodist Church in Oakland, has preached against homosexuality to his congregation of 2,800.

Link article.cgi?file=/c/a/200...

I think this outrage is selective and manufactured.... Underscore the words in the press release "CELEBRATES"

Posted by Grace | October 23, 2007 6:41 PM

This is crazy. The issue is that gays want Obama to pander to them, he won't. Just like he won't pander to the black community. He tells gays that black and gays should work together on issues of equal protection under the law. But he doesn't have time to get into "the victimology of groups". Who had it worst, blacks or gays in America. Gay activists are up in arms because they want everyone to believe that you are gay from birth. I believe most gays/lesbians are gay from birth, but there are alot of bisexuals trying the gay life style out (ie. Anne Heche) and then in working with women who were sexually abused as children, many of them become lesbians due to their early abuse. I don't care if you were born gay or picked it up along the way, you still deserve equal rights. And Obama, can have whomever he wants on his gospal tour, because he is not beholded to any special interest groups.

Interesting thou, many gays support Clinton and she some how convinced gays that her and her husband's support of DOMA was good for the gay community. Keep drinking the koolid.

Posted by sonya | October 23, 2007 6:53 PM

Oh please! So many homophobes pretending not to be bigots! (Blame the gay community for the 2004 loss rather than the hate-filled fundamentalists whose prejudice made it easy for them to be manipulated by Rove -- yeah, you clearly "support gay rights strongly"!)

Obama IS "pandering" to the rightwing christian fundamentalists through his inclusion of this nutjob in his campaign. And then he expects the GLBT community to just ignore it: not going to happen!

And I AM voting for the candidate whom I believe is the best choice -- not just on the issue of gay rights but ALL issues. Obama's betrayal only validates the choice I already made to support Clinton.

Posted by Clay | October 23, 2007 7:21 PM

I find most of the comments so far a little appalling. I'm gay and black, and the last person I support for the Democratic nomination is Hillary. I have little doubt that she would throw gays, blacks, Asians, military personnel, religious minorities, whomever under a bus as soon as it benefited her politically. Seeing her get endorsements from the virulently homophobic people she's cozy with never made me bat an eye. I've been for Obama this whole primary campaign. But hearing this news is tremendously disappointing to me. I expected it from her, but never from him.

You think we want Obama to pander to us? How absurd. We just want him not to hate us, and not to enthusiastically tout someone who does. It seems odd that asking the man who we want to represent us NOT to openly embrace someone who thinks that we're emotionally stunted perverts is "pandering". I consider that something more like "respect". If he's pandering to anybody, it's the extreme right fundamentalists who wholeheartedly eat up this "gays suck!" message.

Is your suggestion to stand quietly acquiescent to bigotry whenever it's politically convenient? Because, honestly, for gays and lesbians that is what we've done for decades. We vote for the candidate who hates us the least. We vote for the person who won't actively try to deny us rights. And now we're finally sick of it. You'd fault us for wanting a candidate who will support us? For wanting a candidate who won't turn his back on us to move ahead some in the polls? I really just can't hold my nose and pull the lever anymore. I understand that our politicians need to court these more conservative voters, but they should do that with uplifting messages and tolerant people who we can all agree on and feel good about. That's what a real uniter does. He doesn't seek out clearly divisive and intolerant people to speak (or, I guess, sing) on his behalf. I would be just as galled if Dennis Kucinich hired David Duke to try to connect with southern voters. Or if John Edwards chose Virgil Goode to try to reach out to xenophobic, anti-Islamic constituents.

The fact that everyone here is much more eager to point out that so-and-so did the same thing before with homophobic supporters, or that we must keep our eyes on the goal of our candidate winning no matter the cost so that we can change the government....it says to me that you UNDERSTAND that this sort of thing is wrong, but that the political ends justify the means. I can't accept that anymore. I really, honestly believe that every time we sacrifice our standards and our morals like this for the "greater political good", we lose something that's really integral to our country, something that's been missing from government for at least the last 7 years certainly. I don't know what it is....saying it's our 'soul" seems really hackneyed, but its something along those lines. And I really, honestly believed that Barack Obama was someone who agreed with that concept and who would understand and practice it. "No matter the cost" politics has cost this country a great deal this decade, and I would think that if ANYONE would understand that and be sympathetic to it it'd be the progressive party activists who are behind Mr. Obama as fervently as you guys seem to be.

Please don't talk to me about wanting Obama to "violate his conscience" if his conscience tells him that I am somewhat inferior by birth, or that he may actively hire others who hold that view if it scores him some political points. And please don't talk to me about how gay activists need to take a more comprehensive look at all the issues, like the war and immigration and health care. I've been to more war protests than the vast majority of this country. I've been to every immigration protest here in Portland, and I've written my congressmen numerous times about these issues. I actively support these goals as much as I can on my limited budget. I dare you to guess how many straight people I hear speaking up loudly for equal rights for gays and lesbians. Yes, we as a community put a lot of focus on our LGBT issues, but we have to. No one else will for us. Unlike most other issues, it seems that the only people who fight for our rights are people who are of the community. We don't get a great deal of "outside help" as it were. Don't try to paint us as one-issue voters. While certainly it's an important issue for me, it's not the only one. It's more the sine qua non for my vote. When people tell me that I need to be more concerned about these other issues, forgive me, but it just sounds like a bunch of people whose personal civil rights AREN'T up for vote telling me that I don't have all that much to lose. Slightly ridiculous.

Don't get me wrong. Barack Obama is still probably the front-runner for the nomination in my mind (though Dodd, Edwards and Biden have all been looking extremely appealing lately). I'm just not going to throw anymore of my money at someone who'd keep a McClurkin on his payroll.

Posted by matt | October 23, 2007 7:55 PM

Clay, Obama's betrayal of gays- oh please, I don't think so. He isn't the one who supports DOMA and DADT. He isnt the one accepting anti gay leaders endsorments and sharing a stage with those leaders. And how in the world did you come up with religious blacks being rightwing christian fundamentalists. Blacks historically vote democratic and know (most of them except Colin Powell, Supreme Court Justice Thomas and a few other dimwits who despise their owwn race) that the Republicans don't care for their community. Just because lots of blacks attend church don't mean they are fanatics. God waded through the waters with them as they tried to escape slavery, God provided for them during/after the civil war in the south, giving them the knowledge on how to make tasty food out of weeds (collard green anyone), God was with us and soothe our nerves as our brothers were hung in trees and our women were raped by KKK members during Jim Crow, God saw fit to send us two dynamic prophets- Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X. God and blacks is more of a cultural thing that religion. He is in our bones and breathe throughout our being. When you listen to pop princess Beyonce singing, she is wailing from the history of our people and God is in the midst of all of it.

Posted by sonya | October 23, 2007 7:58 PM

Good for the SC press. This is NOT an Obama story; at most, it's a Democratic Party story (see below). And who sings for a campaign is not really a story at all. Everyone should check out The Onion's "bullshit" video, and ask themselves if this is not the biggest bullshit story of the election cycle.

As to my point about this being a Democratic story, any blogger or journo who is covering this should ask Hillary and Edwards their views before acting like Obama is out of step. Hillary and Edwards have tried to get the endorsements of many African American ministers with homophobic views. Hillary succeeded in at least one such effort and boasted on her website of the endorsement by a Rev. Mayberry.

They are either all wrong or they are all right on this. Obama is not doing anything out of step with the other Dems.

Posted by Fred723 | October 23, 2007 8:03 PM

Hate to break it to you Clay but Hillary actively sought the endorsement of Mayberry. So are you not supporting her any more? I hope not, it's a stupid reason to withdraw support.

Posted by E. Glassman | October 23, 2007 8:06 PM

I'll have to explore the Clinton-Mayberry issue more thoroughly. However, if I don't vote for Clinton, there is really NO ONE for whom I can vote.

I voted for Obama for Senator, but he has been way too cozy with the evangelicals during his presidential campaign to suit me. And despite the comments by another poster, I've always felt his support of gay rights was not heart-felt at all. And look -- here he is, kicking us in the teeth. I consider his stance extremely hypocritical after he called for the firing of someone in the Justice Department for making racist remarks. His message is loud and clear: racism is intolerable, but homophobia is okay if it can get me votes.

I don't really care that much for any of the other Democrats for various reasons. Of course, I'd NEVER vote for a republican, so I may just have to grit my teeth and vote for the least hateful alternative.

Posted by Clay | October 23, 2007 8:21 PM

And Sonya -- please! A little reality check: the African American community contains a lot of homophobia. That is the very reason that Obama included this jerk on his campaign tour: to win votes of homophobic African American fundamentalists!

And Obama is indeed "sharing the stage" with this clown at three different campaign events.

Posted by Clay | October 23, 2007 8:26 PM

Yes Clay, homophobia is a problem in the black community. But the majority of blacks don't vote based on social wedge issues. They vote on economic issues and for economic opportunities (ie education, affirmative action). Who will do the most for their community. For blacks it has been and will be the economy, stupid. And I'm getting really tired of people who aren't black trying to describe us and who and what we are. People still think that the black community supported OJ. It wasn't about OJ, it was about the justice system that for so long has sent many of innoncent black people to jail and to their deaths without equally doling out same sentences to white (ie. Rodney King and Jena 6). The blacks were appaulding because OJ represented what was wrong with the criminial justice system, that its not fair and can be unjustice. As my grandfather said on evening of OJ's verdict- "the chickens had come home to roast and all the Marcus Gravey's of America are saying so much for vaulted American justice system."

Posted by sonya | October 23, 2007 9:15 PM

The person that is keeping this story alive is Earl Ofari Hutchinson. He will not be satisfied until Donnie is kicked off the tour. The traditional media is never going to hold Clinton or Edwards to the same standard as they hold Obama. Everyone jumped on Michelle for trying to humanize Obama because she knew this would happen. The media has turned him into a saint and as a result every policy, position, etc. must be pure or he will be criticized. Obama has been consistent in speaking the truth to hostile crowds. He spoke about mileage standards in Detroit to auto workers. He talks to communities of color about individual responsibility. It is illogical to believe that he would not repeat his consistent stance on the gay community during the tour. My guess is that Donnie will step down and we will miss an opportunity. The whole point of Obama's campaign is about the fact that we are all in this together and if we come together on common ground we can start to understand each other and find some common solutions. If Donnie is not part of the tour he and therefore we cannot begin to understand, solve and heal.

Posted by RealB.G. | October 23, 2007 11:41 PM

Oh honestly, sonya. The majority of my family and the other black people I know DID vote for Bush PRECISELY because the idea of gay marriage was so nauseating to them at the time. Sweeping statements such as the one you make do no one any good.

Maybe some of you are right, maybe the media and his supporters have painted Obama as a saint who can do no wrong and whose message must be pure. But he really did this to himself. If he's going to go on about his new, post-partisan,inclusive approach he'd damn well better live up to it. Honestly, would you guys be saying the same thing if he'd gotten someone like David Duke to talk? Because that's pretty much the equivalent. Just because racism is much more taboo a prejudice than homophobia shouldn't make it any more acceptable, I think. Would you have been up in arms if he'd invited some neo-nazis to speak at some rally to try and drum up some support of people who perhaps wouldn't otherwise give him a thought? Perhaps that's a little extreme of an example, but I'm just trying to see where you'd draw the line on HOW inclusive he can be. What sort of hate-mongers would you allow and which sort would you disallow?

Posted by Matt | October 24, 2007 2:00 AM

Ok, so Donnie believes that homosexuality is a choice and you burn him at the stake? Obama acknowledges a different point of view, yet wants to keep "an open dialogue" and you burn him at the stake, too? Donnie didn't say that gay people should be harmed, did he? Did he say they should be branded?

As much intolerance as the gay community touts comes toward them, they dish it 100x worse if these comments are an indicator. Why are people who believe differently from you dimwitted? Why are they labeled with such derision? I sense the same hate and shortsightedness in some of these comments as one would expect from the likes of David Duke or Osama!

Our society has issues w/ respecting others and realizing that a reputation is important. Because it is “impossible” to have someone think unlike us, we will ruin them and label them, until they renege or die, because really that’s all they’re good for. Isn’t that the way gay people felt back in the day? Perhaps still feel? Why then subject others to what you don’t like?

I am black, Republican and believe sexual orientation to be influenced by choice and environment. I can see the reasons for the honest campaign choices Obama has made, while not agreeing w/ everything he stands for. Am I afraid of homosexuals? No. I don’t agree w/ them. Do I associate w/ homosexuals? Yes. Their sexual orientation should not define them, just as my skin color or political affiliation shouldn’t define me. Its part of what makes me unique.

Those who don’t realize our political system has ALWAYS been about the lesser of 2 evils, either just got into the game, is far too idealistic, or grossly uninformed about life in the global community. Tis the way of the world- every gov’t, every state.

This must be why our founding fathers came here. This must be what Nazi Germany started out like. Alas, where now can we go?

Posted by Cynthia | October 24, 2007 3:01 AM

Matt,

I understand your passion about this issue; LGBT issues are a big priority for me as well, as my best friends must deal with discrimination every day. I personally am 100% for gay marriage and, of course, equal rights for all GLBT.

That being said, there's a big difference between McClurkin and those who have a "gays suck" platform:

Tuesday [McClurkin] told the Tribune that his ideals, and most importantly his ministry, were severely misconstrued.

"I don't believe that even from a religious point of view that Jesus ever discriminated toward anyone, nor do I," McClurkin said in an exclusive interview with the Tribune. "Most of the things that were said were totally out of context and then other things weren't true."

"There's never been a statement made by me about curing homosexuality. People are using that in order to incite anger and to twist my whole platform on it. There's no crusade for curing it or to convert everyone. This is just for those who come to me and ask for change."

"I believe in [Obama's] stance. I believe in his platform and his agenda. So when they asked me if I would be a part of it, there was no problem," said McClurkin, who has performed at both parties' conventions and identifies himself as a Democrat. "We don't have to agree on everything, but we do have to agree on the main thing: that there needs to be change and I believe he is the candidate to bring it."

Posted by Trish | October 24, 2007 4:08 AM

two things -

this story has taken root and is not being ignored.

also, the whomever wrote the article seems to have ignored that McClurkin has gone on record saying untrue things regarding gays wanting to harm children.

Don't confuse the issue. Our anger with McClurkin does not lie necessarily with his views on being an "ex-gay" but also his attempted links to gays and pedophilia.

Posted by a. mcewen | October 24, 2007 8:26 AM

Please learn the proper use of apostrophes and the proper forms for possessives. I can't believe something this poorly written goes out under the Atlantic banner:

"Is McClurkin [sic-- should be possessive with "'s"] popularity and willingness to embrace Obama -- a staunch supporter of gay right's [sic-- this is a plural not a possessive so no apostrophe] -- more important than the sensitivies[sic--spelling] of Obama's gay donors? As of this writing, that's up in the air -- the Politico's Ben Smith reports on a calm-the-waters conference call that David Plouffe has to take time from his campaign manager duties to attend.

"There's a legitimate conflict here: in Obama's vision of America, are anti-gay views acceptable? Does Obama, as a modernist evangelical, accept the support of those Christians who believe that homosexuality is a curse? Politically, does McClurkin [sic-- another possessive] gospel message -- and the way it helps validate Obama's religious identity -- trump the parochial concerns of an interest group?

Posted by B | October 24, 2007 9:48 AM

Hillary did not bring us 'Don't ask, Don't tell' nore does she support it. DOMA was also something that Bill Clinton, not Hillary Clinton, did.

As a gay person I hate DOMa but I also understand the politics behind how and why it came to be. I also understand that Hillary is not Bill and should not be blamed for his mistakes.

Obama, unlike HIllary, is giving a gay hating bigot a stage and allowing him to represent him. that is far worse and will cost him many votes.

Posted by Destini | October 24, 2007 1:34 PM

Between the tired old Rovian-speel "but Clinton did it" for EVERY Cheney administration screw up, now being used by the Obama Camp, or straight Democrats telling gays/lesbians what they must tollerate, fund and vote for....I'm getting even MORE P*SSED OFF, than the initial McClurkin gospel Hate-Fest.
Straight Democrats you don't DARE presume you know one moment of the lives of gays and lesbians.
If you think we (LGBT's) are going to silently sit in the back of a campaign bus AGAIN, and get blamed afterwards when your lousey candidate loses...kiss my queer A$$!
If Obama wants to be MY president he'd STAND with the LGBT candle light vigil OUTSIDE the concert.
Obama talks the talk at HRC's LOGO debate, I'll see if he walks the walk.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/STAND2.jpg
Finally McClurkin, when the LGBT community finds you trickin' with a man,(and we WILL) after you ruin Obama's chance at the White House...hell hath NO FURY..."

Posted by underbear1 | October 28, 2007 1:16 AM

Morphing of Democratic Candidates

Hillary = Lieberman with a fake laugh

Obama = Alan Keyes only taller

I see now why thousands are trying to draft Al Gore

Posted by underbear1 | October 28, 2007 1:43 AM

Donnie never said he hated Gays. As a matter of fact he said he used to be Gay. He is just saying he believes in the Bible. Do you think Obama should exclude everyone from his campaign that disagrees on the Gay lifesyle, abortion rights, the war in Iraq, Foreign policy, health care, free trade, global warming and every other issue and thought he has. Who would he have left? Himself.

Posted by Diana Baskin | October 28, 2007 11:15 PM

People have a right to associate with who they want to. The lesbian and gay community have a double-standard. I don't see gays in the muslim mosque. They are afraid of being killed. Yet they hate Christians who are more tolerant of gays than any other religion. Maybe they should go to the mosque, they serve God too!

Posted by Murl | October 29, 2007 1:53 AM

Sen. Obama, hopefully, realizes that of all the great crises facing the world, disagreements over interpretations of the Bible regarding homosexual activity isn't one of them. I don't undertand (even as a gay man) why so-called gay rights groups (I prefer simply to call them, Gay,Inc.) would be so vocal about this incident. Does this mean that every one upon whom Obama calls for support has to have a particular theological belief about homosexuality? Surely not. The issue isn't whether or not homosexuality is a sin (as many people of faith believe), but rather what is public policy going to be when it comes to the rights of citizens. Obama doesn't have to surround himself with those of like theological mindset in order to address issues of civil rights. At least I wouldn't think he would.

Posted by David R. Gillespie | October 29, 2007 5:15 PM

First of all, I guess “strongly urging” to have Donnie dropped didn’t work. I think it was a bias request because it says gays want to be accepted for their belief (OK to be gay), but don’t want others to be accepted despite their beliefs (Not OK to be gay).

I also think challenging African-American religious leaders is misleading. Gays ONLY challenge the Christian religion, because Muslims and Jews don’t accept them PERIOD. You would think that gays would appreciate Christianity for embracing them when the others don’t. Not going to happen though. You give a person an inch, you know the rest.

People will have to be legally blind to believe that a person’s skin color can be compared to two people of the same gender having sex. Do you see how stupid that sounds? Oh, and FYI, what is even more stupid, it’s always compared to black skin, no other color. The trick is this—It’s like being black, why we would want the controversy? Good question.

When it comes to God, he doesn’t approve of sex out of wedlock. Is there a such thing as a gay virgin? I’ll wait for the answer. Time’s up. I didn’t think so either. Homosexuality is about sex and that’s it. You can love people of the same gender, but CAN’T YOU KEEP YOUR LEGS CLOTHES?

This is my conclusion, if all people want to bring their sexual issues to church, you have to accept the following 3 rules and warning.

1. All adulterers, fornicators, masturbators, child molesters and homosexuals will have equal say, without being shut out.
2. All of the issues must be brought up in the Mosques, Temples and Churches everywhere.
3. You must also accept bestiality, because some people say they were born that way. It’s happening in Europe --> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/may/25/broadcasting.radio

Warning - Do not tell God that the religious people said “you can be gay.” Remember religious people don’t have a Heaven or Hell for you.

Posted by Majic | October 30, 2007 8:47 PM

gfomhqkwe dxfqabvug crzp ltwhqeg zedvfplcw kmzrwup yrfmnakvi

Posted by bvazfnorj ykzrq | June 26, 2008 6:17 AM

kqegtrv cntxvmqkz rjqaklhon ezyhiv pzhtlw wzorgmxf stgkmypul

Posted by bpwk ygctijfa | June 26, 2008 6:41 AM