Not at all. Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians all have big fights over just this issue. UCC has come down that it isn’t a sin.

===Does the Christian teaching to love homosexuals somehow include claiming they are out to “kill our children” and that they should have war made upon them?

I agree it’s offensive, but it’s not uncommon in black and white churches to hear such things and lots of the people who say it are Democratic supporters. I’m okay with kicking some people to the curb, but I’m not sure how we are differentiating them.

Actually, no. Catholics, at least, generally consider homosexuality to be innate and unchangable. That’s why Courage, the Catholic ex-gay group, doesn’t do reparative therapy, but teaches that gays should be celebate.

Does the Christian teaching to love homosexuals somehow include claiming they are out to “kill our children” and that they should have war made upon them?

McClurkin’s position, that homosexuality is “sinful” and “curable”, is standard Christian doctrine, not some pecadillo specific to black churches. Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons and Episcopalians all instruct their followers that homosexual acts are sinful and that they may be permenantly repressed through prayer and counselling. The pope has referred to homosexuality as an “objective disorder” for pete’s sake! Should Obama shun His Holiness if he offers support?

And please, spare me the KKK comparisons, ok? While Christian teaching on homosexuality is outdated, it does still direct its followers to love and respect homosexuals. It does not create any qualitative difference between homosexuals and any other sinner in the church. McClurkin is much closer to Nobel Prize winner, James D. Watson; spectacularly wrong, but worth the effort to challenge and perhaps rehabilitate.

McClurkin is the guy that claims gays are “trying to kill our children” and is threatening a war against homosexuals. There’s being a conservative minister and then there’s being Fred Phelps-ian minister. We don’t need another Phelps.

Yes, the democrats have two extremely loyal constituents who dont really like each other at all. African-americans who i know off are more homophobic than the average population.. and you dont have need “mary mary” or tim hardaway to make a point about that.

But guess what… tough shit…. politics is a balancing act.. always and especially for the democrats and as a LGBT person of color I fell especially offended when he decided to not rescind that invitation.

I dont speak for my people but I hope we can get our point across.

The GLBT community does not own the democratic party… we’re not the politburo or some thing like that… but we will not be taken for granted or treated like christian conservatives were in the Bush white house… we have put too much time and effort into voting out that horrible Santorum, in bringing ourselves to chuck liebermann and Linc Chafee(despite that they were both loyal too us).

We DONT NEED AFRICAN-AMERICANS TO TELL US WHAT PARTY LOYALTY IS ALL ABOUT. We are the democratic party.

I live in Chicago and guess what, I and about 14 or so of my 20-22 year old friends campaigned for Obama to sure that Keyes would never win an election and guess what… we’re having a serious moment of disillusionment right now.

If this is the new standard, then every candidate should be included and it’s not going to go easily.

In this case, we have a pro-gay candidate who is getting support of people who disagree with him on this issue and he’s stating he rejects their views on this issue.

This would also open up a huge hole in black communities and Democrats. I tend to think that we do a better job by keeping them in the coalition creating that dialogue. African-Americans as a whole are socially conservative on issues like abortion and gay rights–do we not appeal to them because they are bigots? Or do we run on principle and see if they can join a coalition to elect candidates who support some of their issues, but also are socially progressive?

I don’t think people quite realize how problematic this would quickly become.

Yes, that is what it means. Stand on stage with the occasional black preacher who does not spew bigotry, or, if you cannot, with none at all. If our only hope for electoral victory were allying with the KKK, I’d like to think that we’d gracefully accept defeat instead. Call me an idealist, I suppose.

This isn’t atypical for black churches or their ministers. I think there are a lot of implications to drawing the line at McClurkin. The prescriptions from conservative black ministers are the same–the only difference is the public acknowledgment by McClurkin that he had gay sex.

I don’t see that much of a difference between them and their message. Symbolically I can see why people react more strongly to McClurkin, but I don’t think you can really differentiate him much from Mayberry. They both profess the same faith on the issue. As does Jackson.

And if that is a standard, there are some problems that are going to occur.

I think part of this issue is framing. If McClurkin offers himself up as a supporter of Obama (which I understand is the case), why is this portrayed as Obama embracing McClurkin views? Obama’s views on LGBT issues are pretty well known, so it seems to me that the positive here is that we have a bigot (for lack of a better word) embracing the campaign of a man running on inclusiveness (not to mention, again, his position on LGBT issues). Isn’t this a positive development? What’s the saying, every journey begins with a first step.

And I’m not trying to defend McClurkin’s position, but understand why the framing (Obama embracing McClurkin) is so pervasive when the facts seem to support the opposite conclusion.