Opinion of TJ in Cleve

[DavidB.]

I have lots of points of disagreement with TJ, gay marriage being just one of them, but any poster who is informed, coherent, respectful, interesting, and brings in a different perspective is FF by me.

Basically this, bigtime FF.

Anyone who believes that LGBT folk are not worthy of the same rights as straight people is an HP. He's nice and he's personable, but I'm not sorry. We need to make loud and clear that there is no room for these views in any decent society. They perpetuate the idea that gay people are inherently "less than," and it is absolutely not okay.

"Gay marriage is the most important moral issue ever and constitutes the ultimate litmus test for whether a person is good or evil. On the other hand, supporting economic policies that make it possible for people to starve or not have a roof on their head is a legitimate position, though I disagree with it."

^ Modern American liberalism in a nutshell.

Again with your trivialization of the importance of gay rights? This is really becoming quite the annoying shtick. Literally no one ever said anything remotely similar to your hyperbolic statement. If anything, people who support gay rights are in fact more likely to support ending the War on Drugs and creating conditions that improve the position of homeless people.

[Cassius]

Anyone who believes that LGBT folk are not worthy of the same rights as straight people is an HP. He's nice and he's personable, but I'm not sorry. We need to make loud and clear that there is no room for these views in any decent society. They perpetuate the idea that gay people are inherently "less than," and it is absolutely not okay.

nobody cares

About your opinion you mean.

Yeah

[afleitch]

I've never liked him. Sorry.

[TDAS04]

Anyone who believes that LGBT folk are not worthy of the same rights as straight people is an HP. He's nice and he's personable, but I'm not sorry. We need to make loud and clear that there is no room for these views in any decent society. They perpetuate the idea that gay people are inherently "less than," and it is absolutely not okay.

While opposing legal SSM is inexcusable, as it is opposition to certain equal rights for LGBT people that is not based in logic, not all SSM-opponents are seething with hatred or wishing death to gays.  Mild bigotry can be forgiven, and even someone who was mildly racist a few decades ago may not have been an automatic HP.  For example, a person in the 1970s who opposed interracial marriage for silly, irrational reasons may not have been virulently hateful to the point of wanting to harm blacks.

Anyone who believes that LGBT folk are not worthy of the same rights as straight people is an HP. He's nice and he's personable, but I'm not sorry. We need to make loud and clear that there is no room for these views in any decent society. They perpetuate the idea that gay people are inherently "less than," and it is absolutely not okay.

"Gay marriage is the most important moral issue ever and constitutes the ultimate litmus test for whether a person is good or evil. On the other hand, supporting economic policies that make it possible for people to starve or not have a roof on their head is a legitimate position, though I disagree with it."

^ Modern American liberalism in a nutshell.

Nobody said such a thing.  Obviously the necessities of life are more important than anyone's right to marriage.  At the same time, opposing equal rights based on who a person is--whether it's about race, gender, or sexual orientation--is opposition to civil rights.  Opposing civil rights is more offensive than opposing greater economic regulation in the sense that those with the latter position don't necessarily hate the poor, but opponents of gay marriage believe the silly notion that there's something wrong with being gay.

[DavidB.]

Anyone who believes that LGBT folk are not worthy of the same rights as straight people is an HP. He's nice and he's personable, but I'm not sorry. We need to make loud and clear that there is no room for these views in any decent society. They perpetuate the idea that gay people are inherently "less than," and it is absolutely not okay.

While opposing legal SSM is inexcusable, as it is opposition to certain equal rights for LGBT people that is not based in logic, not all SSM-opponents are seething with hatred or wishing death to gays.  Mild bigotry can be forgiven, and even someone who was mildly racist a few decades ago may not have been an automatic HP.  For example, a person in the 1970s who opposed interracial marriage for silly, irrational reasons may not have been virulently hateful to the point of wanting to harm blacks.

Anyone who believes that LGBT folk are not worthy of the same rights as straight people is an HP. He's nice and he's personable, but I'm not sorry. We need to make loud and clear that there is no room for these views in any decent society. They perpetuate the idea that gay people are inherently "less than," and it is absolutely not okay.

"Gay marriage is the most important moral issue ever and constitutes the ultimate litmus test for whether a person is good or evil. On the other hand, supporting economic policies that make it possible for people to starve or not have a roof on their head is a legitimate position, though I disagree with it."

^ Modern American liberalism in a nutshell.

Nobody said such a thing.  Obviously the necessities of life are more important than anyone's right to marriage.  At the same time, opposing equal rights based on who a person is--whether it's about race, gender, or sexual orientation--is opposition to civil rights.  Opposing civil rights is more offensive than opposing greater economic regulation in the sense that those with the latter position don't necessarily hate the poor, but opponents of gay marriage believe the silly notion that there's something wrong with being gay.

Wow, this is actually a great post.

[Torie]

I am reluctant personally to trash someone and dump them into the deplorables basket when their opposition to SSM is based on sincerely held religious beliefs that reflect the tenets of their church. Catholics by the way, believe that being gay is just fine, it's just their having sex that's "sinful" for reasons that have a certain Catch-22 aspect about it - to wit, sex is only to be within marriage, but alas gays cannot get into that state of sexual grace, because gays should not get married, given that SSS (same sex sex), is "disordered."  Obviously, I don't believe that. It feels totally "ordered" and "natural" to me!

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Probably uselectionatlas's best remaining poster

[LLR]

I've seen few of his posts, so I don't know, but he's probably alright

[Green Line]

FF

[Antonio the Sixth]

Again with your trivialization of the importance of gay rights? This is really becoming quite the annoying shtick. Literally no one ever said anything remotely similar to your hyperbolic statement. If anything, people who support gay rights are in fact more likely to support ending the War on Drugs and creating conditions that improve the position of homeless people.

Again? I might have done at most 2-3 posts on the subject in the past two years.

Of course no one actually said it outright, but compare the way some of our resident liberals react to people who oppose SSM to the way they react to people who want to gut social security or repeal Obamacare and "let the free market handle it". The double standard is staggering.

[Kingpoleon]

So, Antonio, would you rather have interracial marriage banned and ObamaCare passed or ObamaCare not passed and interracial marriage legal?

You have a more socially right wing score than economically, so I'm sure economics are generally more important to you. Similarly, for example, NeverAgain has a social score three points to the left of his economic score, so it makes sense that social issues are more important to him.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Probably uselectionatlas's best remaining poster

If you feel the quality's so poor, you're more than welcome to leave

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Anyone who believes that LGBT folk are not worthy of the same rights as straight people is an HP. He's nice and he's personable, but I'm not sorry. We need to make loud and clear that there is no room for these views in any decent society. They perpetuate the idea that gay people are inherently "less than," and it is absolutely not okay.

"Decent society"!? "Decent society" was perpetually grounded against any semblance of "progress" until its urge became overwhelming. "Decent society" was a weapon to use against waves of minorities for decades. I can't imagine a single *moral* advantage in using it now. I'm sure the spite feels amazing, but the high ground that is so valued among liberal circles today is not there. #RIP

Reclaiming a term used by oppressive forces, this time to disavow oppression on legitimate moral grounds, is not something I feel bad about.

Anyone who believes that LGBT folk are not worthy of the same rights as straight people is an HP. He's nice and he's personable, but I'm not sorry. We need to make loud and clear that there is no room for these views in any decent society. They perpetuate the idea that gay people are inherently "less than," and it is absolutely not okay.

While opposing legal SSM is inexcusable, as it is opposition to certain equal rights for LGBT people that is not based in logic, not all SSM-opponents are seething with hatred or wishing death to gays.  Mild bigotry can be forgiven, and even someone who was mildly racist a few decades ago may not have been an automatic HP.  For example, a person in the 1970s who opposed interracial marriage for silly, irrational reasons may not have been virulently hateful to the point of wanting to harm blacks.

Not to be an ass, but maybe you come from a position of privilege that allows you to "easily forgive" these things. Any instance of a closeted gay kid growing up in a world where it's clear that he's not welcome, wanted, or even "ideal" is always a terrible, sad thing. Regardless of whether an opponent of equal marriage is "seething with hatred or wishing death to gays," they are still helping to build a world that makes LGBT folk feel out of place. And that can mess with a person in horrible ways. I'm not willing to excuse that because "it could be worse." It's still bad and we should still know better.

Anyone who believes that LGBT folk are not worthy of the same rights as straight people is an HP. He's nice and he's personable, but I'm not sorry. We need to make loud and clear that there is no room for these views in any decent society. They perpetuate the idea that gay people are inherently "less than," and it is absolutely not okay.

"Gay marriage is the most important moral issue ever and constitutes the ultimate litmus test for whether a person is good or evil. On the other hand, supporting economic policies that make it possible for people to starve or not have a roof on their head is a legitimate position, though I disagree with it."

^ Modern American liberalism in a nutshell.

As has been pointed out, I never said that. I believe the litmus test applies to all clear matters of discrimination. In fact, I'm starting to believe it applies to the less-clear instances too, but I'm willing to provide a little bit of leeway for the individual instances of stupidity that can obfuscate things.

Proponents of so-called "traditional marriage" are fighting for an issue where the central, obvious question revolves around discrimination: Should we expand the definition of marriage to include more people? It can't be clearer than that, and people know exactly what is at stake in this debate. Complex economic issues are rarely so black-and-white, and there is room, I think, for a person to legitimately believe that, say, a culture of dependency produced by "government handouts" is partly to blame for cyclical poverty. I strongly disagree, but I concede that it is harder for logical people to reach a consensus regarding what counts as "economic policies that make it possible for people to starve."

Plus, making it possible for people to suffer is different than decreeing that all people with x characteristics will be denied equal rights. But I know I'm wandering into the weeds.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I agree with Hagrid's point about any discrimination being a limitus test. I'm pretty sure that if this forum was active in the 50s and we've had a Black poster vocal on African American discrimination, some of our other posters would be like "oh, you're talking about only one issue, you're so obsessed with this, blah, blah."

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ugh, I really don't want to get into a long-winded argument about this and I probably should have kept my annoyance for myself. Let me just say I'm not entirely convinced by the analogy. I do think that opposing SSM is discriminatory, but not in the way and to the extent of the other instances you're describing. I find the Jim Crow analogies frankly inappropriate, tbh.

And what I'm merely objecting to here is mainly the fact that you don't find the same level of emotional involvement in other issues that have far more massive implications on people's lives. Saying "it's complicated, people have disagreements" is really just a cop out. There are policies that condemn people to a life of misery, and we KNOW that. Even the people who advocate for them know it. They shouldn't be left off the hook so easily.

[RHTFT]

FF, but he would be a massive FF if not for his stance on SSM.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Child abuse is more inexcusable than opposition to SSM.  I hope we can all agree on that much.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ugh, I really don't want to get into a long-winded argument about this and I probably should have kept my annoyance for myself. Let me just say I'm not entirely convinced by the analogy. I do think that opposing SSM is discriminatory, but not in the way and to the extent of the other instances you're describing. I find the Jim Crow analogies frankly inappropriate, tbh.

I wasn't referring to you. As of Jim Crow analogies, I think when a gay person is being killed because of their sexual orientation isn't very diffrent from a Black man lynched by the KKK. Hate is hate.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ugh, I really don't want to get into a long-winded argument about this and I probably should have kept my annoyance for myself. Let me just say I'm not entirely convinced by the analogy. I do think that opposing SSM is discriminatory, but not in the way and to the extent of the other instances you're describing. I find the Jim Crow analogies frankly inappropriate, tbh.

I wasn't referring to you. As of Jim Crow analogies, I think when a gay person is being killed because of their sexual orientation isn't very diffrent from a Black man lynched by the KKK. Hate is hate.

And if TJ had said it's OK to kill gay people, then he'd obviously be an inexcusably despicable individual. However, he never said anything even close to that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Tony, that's an absurd strawman. I don't recall any liberals expressing such sentiment to Paul Ryan and his budget plans for instance.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I have lots of points of disagreement with TJ, gay marriage being just one of them, but any poster who is informed, coherent, respectful, interesting, and brings in a different perspective is FF by me.

Basically this, bigtime FF.

Anyone who believes that LGBT folk are not worthy of the same rights as straight people is an HP. He's nice and he's personable, but I'm not sorry. We need to make loud and clear that there is no room for these views in any decent society. They perpetuate the idea that gay people are inherently "less than," and it is absolutely not okay.

"Gay marriage is the most important moral issue ever and constitutes the ultimate litmus test for whether a person is good or evil. On the other hand, supporting economic policies that make it possible for people to starve or not have a roof on their head is a legitimate position, though I disagree with it."

^ Modern American liberalism in a nutshell.

Again with your trivialization of the importance of gay rights? This is really becoming quite the annoying shtick. Literally no one ever said anything remotely similar to your hyperbolic statement. If anything, people who support gay rights are in fact more likely to support ending the War on Drugs and creating conditions that improve the position of homeless people.

Antonio has shown multiple times that he has some homophobia to deal with. 

Anyone who would be hostile towards their children because they are gay is a horrible person in my book, so I voted HP.

[DavidB.]

Ugh, I really don't want to get into a long-winded argument about this and I probably should have kept my annoyance for myself. Let me just say I'm not entirely convinced by the analogy. I do think that opposing SSM is discriminatory, but not in the way and to the extent of the other instances you're describing. I find the Jim Crow analogies frankly inappropriate, tbh.

And what I'm merely objecting to here is mainly the fact that you don't find the same level of emotional involvement in other issues that have far more massive implications on people's lives. Saying "it's complicated, people have disagreements" is really just a cop out. There are policies that condemn people to a life of misery, and we KNOW that. Even the people who advocate for them know it. They shouldn't be left off the hook so easily.

Your opinion is a legitimate one, and I think we can all agree there are certain issues that are more pressing than SSM, but I simply don't understand why you bring this up when Hagrid makes his point (with which I do not entirely agree, btw, because I think TJ is an FF despite his views on gay rights).

The bottom line is this. Hagrid says he thinks TJ is a HP for his stance on gay rights, which is not acceptable in Hagrid's eyes, and you randomly decide to complain about SSM supposedly being the number one issue for "modern American liberals". Nothing in Hagrid's post or in this thread provoked such a response, so why do you even bring it up? It comes across as if it's not only about "priorities" for you, but as if you really find people's concerns about SSM (even if you support it) or gay acceptance a bit silly. And that is something I'd very much object to.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Probably uselectionatlas's best remaining poster

If you feel the quality's so poor, you're more than welcome to leave

I don't find the quality poor which is why I post here rather than there. It's just clear that a mass exodus of quality occurred leaving a new best person around here.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ugh, I really don't want to get into a long-winded argument about this and I probably should have kept my annoyance for myself. Let me just say I'm not entirely convinced by the analogy. I do think that opposing SSM is discriminatory, but not in the way and to the extent of the other instances you're describing. I find the Jim Crow analogies frankly inappropriate, tbh.

And what I'm merely objecting to here is mainly the fact that you don't find the same level of emotional involvement in other issues that have far more massive implications on people's lives. Saying "it's complicated, people have disagreements" is really just a cop out. There are policies that condemn people to a life of misery, and we KNOW that. Even the people who advocate for them know it. They shouldn't be left off the hook so easily.

Your opinion is a legitimate one, and I think we can all agree there are certain issues that are more pressing than SSM, but I simply don't understand why you bring this up when Hagrid makes his point (with which I do not entirely agree, btw, because I think TJ is an FF despite his views on gay rights).

The bottom line is this. Hagrid says he thinks TJ is a HP for his stance on gay rights, which is not acceptable in Hagrid's eyes, and you randomly decide to complain about SSM supposedly being the number one issue for "modern American liberals". Nothing in Hagrid's post or in this thread provoked such a response, so why do you even bring it up? It comes across as if it's not only about "priorities" for you, but as if you really find people's concerns about SSM (even if you support it) or gay acceptance a bit silly. And that is something I'd very much object to.

I just find it annoying that people go to such length to base their judgment of someone as a person on their stance on this one particular issue, when they clearly wouldn't be doing the same thing for other issues that I believe to be even more morally compromising (Hagrid himself was fairly neoliberal until recently, as far as I remember, though not too outrageously so).

The question of the extent to which someone's political views reflect poorly on their own personality is a complex one, and I'm open to arguments from both sides. What annoys me is when people apply one logic to a specific issue of theirs, but otherwise resort to the "legitimate disagreement" default on everything else.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, as you've pointed out, you believe other issues are more morally compromising. And that's totally okay. I disagree, and I think I've given a decent defense for why it's easier to know where someone's heart is at based on their stance on straightforward issues like equal marriage... but you don't have to accept my argument.

Plus, the gay thing obviously hits way closer to home for me. I won't shy away from that, because I don't think I have to be even-keeled when I'm asked to judge a person's character. If they'd prevent me from equal participation in society, I can't look the other way. I'd hope I wouldn't let my privilege blind me to the way a person's positions on different issues affect other people too, but... I'm still allowed to be self-interested, no?