Opinion of TJ in Cleve

[Maxwell]

TJ is not especially disagreeable. Always liked him. FF.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

OK seriously, what the actual f**k is going on in this thread?

I make a simple post wondering if maybe, just maaaaaaaybe support for SSM isn't the only morally relevant litmus test among current political issues, and all of a sudden, "I don't care about LGBT rights", I have "contempt for SSM", I think it's a "bourgeois" issue, and maybe I'm even a little homophobic, who knows?

Have you all actually gone insane?

No, they're not insane.  They just got triggered by your initial post (which obviously wasn't even remotely homophobic) and are now foaming at the mouth with blind, impotent rage.

TJ is a major FF, ftr.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fwiw I came to Antonio's defense when he was called homophobic, and none of my posts were mean-spirited or intended as cheap shots. Neither were other posters', like Scott and even Hagrid. Antonio trying to frame it as some deliberate, deranged attack on him does not do justice to the content of our posts. I understand why Antonio isn't happy with the way this thread turned out, because the homophobia accusation (with which I really disagree) is pretty harsh, but Foucaulf is right: he was the one bringing up this issue.  It wouldn't be damaging to try and see the issue from "our" perspective and some more introspection wouldn't be bad.

Perhaps it is also good to say that while I have had many disagreements with Antonio, I greatly value him as a poster and often find it worthwhile to get to know his perspective on issues, and it is exactly therefore that I am somewhat bewildered by the attitude he has shown toward LGBT issues not only in this thread, but also elsewhere.

I'm sorry if I ascribed malicious intent where there was none. You must understand that when I see a succession of lengthy posts accusing me of things that I find utterly abhorrent, I get a bit too overwhelmed to parse out well-meaning criticism from slander.

Now, if you can point to specific instances where I have expressed contempt or dismissal for LGBT issues, I'd be happy to discuss them and hopefully put an end to this misunderstanding. Again, I don't dismiss these issues at all and I sincerely still don't understand why everybody thinks I do.

[Mr. Morden]

TJ's brand of Republicanism is the type of brand that spiraled out of control and gave us the more annoying elements of the Trump movement. I don't think he gets a pass for being a "reasonable Republican" when he represents politically the worst leftovers of the Bush decade.

I'm kinda curious what this post could possibly be about

I think he's trying to say neocons and/or socons screwed up in office, which combined with Obama-liberalism made Trumpism possible?

Yes. The Trump movement is largely a reaction among Republicans to people like Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, etc, spoon feeding us this same toxic combination of social and neo-conservatism/"Reaganism" garbage year after year. People are so sick and tired of these kind of out of touch Republicans (almost all of whom are in reality no more right-wing than, say, Jeb Bush or John Kasich), and if the candidate most outspokenly and directly in opposition to that happens to be a borderline racist/probable rapist/philandering, orange skinned, loud mouthed, arrogant jackass mascot for a shadowy real estate conglomerate with exaggerated profits that he barely runs, then so be it.

So, we should blame the least Trump-like Republicans for Donald Trump because if only they would have been more like Trump, the voters wouldn't have rebelled against them by voting for Trump?

And you're not just talking about the politicians, apparently, since you're talking about blaming TJ, who's just a voter, not a politician.  Apparently regular Republican voters who dislike Trump and supported non-Trump candidates should have been supporting more Trump-like candidates all these years to appease the Trump supporters who they share a party with.  If only they'd pretended to agree more with the Trump voters than they really do, the Trump voters wouldn't have gotten mad at them and nominated Trump.

Makes sense.

[windjammer]

TJ's brand of Republicanism is the type of brand that spiraled out of control and gave us the more annoying elements of the Trump movement. I don't think he gets a pass for being a "reasonable Republican" when he represents politically the worst leftovers of the Bush decade.

I'm kinda curious what this post could possibly be about

I think he's trying to say neocons and/or socons screwed up in office, which combined with Obama-liberalism made Trumpism possible?

Yes. The Trump movement is largely a reaction among Republicans to people like Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, etc, spoon feeding us this same toxic combination of social and neo-conservatism/"Reaganism" garbage year after year. People are so sick and tired of these kind of out of touch Republicans (almost all of whom are in reality no more right-wing than, say, Jeb Bush or John Kasich), and if the candidate most outspokenly and directly in opposition to that happens to be a borderline racist/probable rapist/philandering, orange skinned, loud mouthed, arrogant jackass mascot for a shadowy real estate conglomerate with exaggerated profits that he barely runs, then so be it.

The Trump movement isn't about Trump. Yes, it is probably true that only a man like Donald Trump could have been able to so expertly tap into that wellspring of disillusionment, but these "deplorables" that TJ in Cleve so detests are in reality the people who until now have carried his outdated, collectivist, bigoted vision of the world on his shoulders just like Atlas carried the world on his.

If Atlas were to shrug, as Ayn Rand wrote, then the world would fall apart. The Trump movement is Atlas, and we're shrugging off TJ, Ted Cruz, my grandma's brother-in-law, the GOP staffers and most of my former campaign friends. We're not going to toil for their vision of the world anymore. Now its their turn to carry us. I don't view any Johnson or Clinton supporters with any contempt. I understand their position. But every #NeverTrump Republican, the people who once called Ron Paul a terrorist sympathizer, the people who declared Gary Johnson the next Ralph Nader in 2012, only to hijack his candidacy four years later, destroy it, and then get on the McMullin bandwagon-these people are unforgivable. These people are the real Republican deplorables.

For ther record, having played and still playing Atlasia with TJ, TJ isn't even a neocon.

[Hifly]

Did not know that we had to be so autistic when passing emotional judgement on people - thanks for letting me know guys.

[Sopranos Republican]

Did not know that we had to be so autistic when passing emotional judgement on people - thanks for letting me know guys.

Unlike at Oxford, where only non-autistic emotional judgment is passed onto people.

[Sopranos Republican]

TJ is an FF of course, with some flawed views for sure, but I haven't given up hope that he'll see the light.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Did not know that we had to be so autistic when passing emotional judgement on people - thanks for letting me know guys.

Unlike at Oxford, where only non-autistic emotional judgment is passed onto people.

Oxford? I thought he was merely a Cambridge man.

TJ's brand of Republicanism is the type of brand that spiraled out of control and gave us the more annoying elements of the Trump movement. I don't think he gets a pass for being a "reasonable Republican" when he represents politically the worst leftovers of the Bush decade.

I'm kinda curious what this post could possibly be about

I think he's trying to say neocons and/or socons screwed up in office, which combined with Obama-liberalism made Trumpism possible?

Yes. The Trump movement is largely a reaction among Republicans to people like Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, etc, spoon feeding us this same toxic combination of social and neo-conservatism/"Reaganism" garbage year after year. People are so sick and tired of these kind of out of touch Republicans (almost all of whom are in reality no more right-wing than, say, Jeb Bush or John Kasich), and if the candidate most outspokenly and directly in opposition to that happens to be a borderline racist/probable rapist/philandering, orange skinned, loud mouthed, arrogant jackass mascot for a shadowy real estate conglomerate with exaggerated profits that he barely runs, then so be it.

So, we should blame the least Trump-like Republicans for Donald Trump because if only they would have been more like Trump, the voters wouldn't have rebelled against them by voting for Trump?

And you're not just talking about the politicians, apparently, since you're talking about blaming TJ, who's just a voter, not a politician.  Apparently regular Republican voters who dislike Trump and supported non-Trump candidates should have been supporting more Trump-like candidates all these years to appease the Trump supporters who they share a party with.  If only they'd pretended to agree more with the Trump voters than they really do, the Trump voters wouldn't have gotten mad at them and nominated Trump.

Makes sense.

There wouldn't be a need for the Trump movement if the GOP didn't embrace imperialism, economic nihilism, and preside over the degeneration of conservatism as an ideology of individualism to this new, emotionally charged form of collectivism that has embraced, say, anti-Muslim bigotry long before Trump proposed the Muslim ban that we all know isn't happening win or lose.

[Vosem]

TJ's brand of Republicanism is the type of brand that spiraled out of control and gave us the more annoying elements of the Trump movement. I don't think he gets a pass for being a "reasonable Republican" when he represents politically the worst leftovers of the Bush decade.

I'm kinda curious what this post could possibly be about

I think he's trying to say neocons and/or socons screwed up in office, which combined with Obama-liberalism made Trumpism possible?

Yes. The Trump movement is largely a reaction among Republicans to people like Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, etc, spoon feeding us this same toxic combination of social and neo-conservatism/"Reaganism" garbage year after year. People are so sick and tired of these kind of out of touch Republicans (almost all of whom are in reality no more right-wing than, say, Jeb Bush or John Kasich), and if the candidate most outspokenly and directly in opposition to that happens to be a borderline racist/probable rapist/philandering, orange skinned, loud mouthed, arrogant jackass mascot for a shadowy real estate conglomerate with exaggerated profits that he barely runs, then so be it.

The Trump movement isn't about Trump. Yes, it is probably true that only a man like Donald Trump could have been able to so expertly tap into that wellspring of disillusionment, but these "deplorables" that TJ in Cleve so detests are in reality the people who until now have carried his outdated, collectivist, bigoted vision of the world on his shoulders just like Atlas carried the world on his.

If Atlas were to shrug, as Ayn Rand wrote, then the world would fall apart. The Trump movement is Atlas, and we're shrugging off TJ, Ted Cruz, my grandma's brother-in-law, the GOP staffers and most of my former campaign friends. We're not going to toil for their vision of the world anymore. Now its their turn to carry us. I don't view any Johnson or Clinton supporters with any contempt. I understand their position. But every #NeverTrump Republican, the people who once called Ron Paul a terrorist sympathizer, the people who declared Gary Johnson the next Ralph Nader in 2012, only to hijack his candidacy four years later, destroy it, and then get on the McMullin bandwagon-these people are unforgivable. These people are the real Republican deplorables.

Do hope you realize that your Trumpist "movement" has totally failed to penetrate congressional primaries in its prime, it's disproportionately old, and that Cruz, Rubio, and their ilk will still be around decades after the Trump run has mostly been forgotten outside of weird political history forums

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

At this point, you are so involved in this argument that you sound more contemptuous toward LGBT rights than you have before. When not even the right wingers are backing you up on your concerns, that should've raised an alarm.

Right-wingers aren't backing Tonio up because we realize the hopelessness of the attempt to convince sjw activists that any position they disagree with might be based in something other than animus against them.    But the issue he raised is clear enough.  Where were the huge boycotts against states that didn't expand Medicaid like there were against states that maybe according to some interpretation of the law might allow a business or two to discriminate against gays? 

I don't know which is more ridiculous: the idea that Antonio wants to send gays to the back of the bus, or quoting Ayn Rand and in the same breath calling TJ of all people an "economic nihilist."

[DC Al Fine]

At this point, you are so involved in this argument that you sound more contemptuous toward LGBT rights than you have before. When not even the right wingers are backing you up on your concerns, that should've raised an alarm.

Right-wingers aren't backing Tonio up because we realize the hopelessness of the attempt to convince sjw activists that any position they disagree with might be based in something other than animus against them.    But the issue he raised is clear enough.  Where were the huge boycotts against states that didn't expand Medicaid like there were against states that maybe according to some interpretation of the law might allow a business or two to discriminate against gays? 

This. You can't piss in Tony's beer and wonder why right wingers don't come to your party.

[Mr. Morden]

TJ's brand of Republicanism is the type of brand that spiraled out of control and gave us the more annoying elements of the Trump movement. I don't think he gets a pass for being a "reasonable Republican" when he represents politically the worst leftovers of the Bush decade.

I'm kinda curious what this post could possibly be about

I think he's trying to say neocons and/or socons screwed up in office, which combined with Obama-liberalism made Trumpism possible?

Yes. The Trump movement is largely a reaction among Republicans to people like Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, etc, spoon feeding us this same toxic combination of social and neo-conservatism/"Reaganism" garbage year after year. People are so sick and tired of these kind of out of touch Republicans (almost all of whom are in reality no more right-wing than, say, Jeb Bush or John Kasich), and if the candidate most outspokenly and directly in opposition to that happens to be a borderline racist/probable rapist/philandering, orange skinned, loud mouthed, arrogant jackass mascot for a shadowy real estate conglomerate with exaggerated profits that he barely runs, then so be it.

So, we should blame the least Trump-like Republicans for Donald Trump because if only they would have been more like Trump, the voters wouldn't have rebelled against them by voting for Trump?

And you're not just talking about the politicians, apparently, since you're talking about blaming TJ, who's just a voter, not a politician.  Apparently regular Republican voters who dislike Trump and supported non-Trump candidates should have been supporting more Trump-like candidates all these years to appease the Trump supporters who they share a party with.  If only they'd pretended to agree more with the Trump voters than they really do, the Trump voters wouldn't have gotten mad at them and nominated Trump.

Makes sense.

There wouldn't be a need for the Trump movement if the GOP didn't embrace imperialism, economic nihilism, and preside over the degeneration of conservatism as an ideology of individualism to this new, emotionally charged form of collectivism that has embraced, say, anti-Muslim bigotry long before Trump proposed the Muslim ban that we all know isn't happening win or lose.

I still don’t get this.  You are basically saying that voters who support A are responsible for making voters who support B become more extreme in their support of B, because they’re pissed off at politicians who support A.  And so people who hate B should actually blame the voters supporting A for making B possible.  That’s absurd logic.  Seems clear that the voters who support B are the ones responsible for B.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

TJ's brand of Republicanism is the type of brand that spiraled out of control and gave us the more annoying elements of the Trump movement. I don't think he gets a pass for being a "reasonable Republican" when he represents politically the worst leftovers of the Bush decade.

I'm kinda curious what this post could possibly be about

I think he's trying to say neocons and/or socons screwed up in office, which combined with Obama-liberalism made Trumpism possible?

Yes. The Trump movement is largely a reaction among Republicans to people like Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, etc, spoon feeding us this same toxic combination of social and neo-conservatism/"Reaganism" garbage year after year. People are so sick and tired of these kind of out of touch Republicans (almost all of whom are in reality no more right-wing than, say, Jeb Bush or John Kasich), and if the candidate most outspokenly and directly in opposition to that happens to be a borderline racist/probable rapist/philandering, orange skinned, loud mouthed, arrogant jackass mascot for a shadowy real estate conglomerate with exaggerated profits that he barely runs, then so be it.

The Trump movement isn't about Trump. Yes, it is probably true that only a man like Donald Trump could have been able to so expertly tap into that wellspring of disillusionment, but these "deplorables" that TJ in Cleve so detests are in reality the people who until now have carried his outdated, collectivist, bigoted vision of the world on his shoulders just like Atlas carried the world on his.

If Atlas were to shrug, as Ayn Rand wrote, then the world would fall apart. The Trump movement is Atlas, and we're shrugging off TJ, Ted Cruz, my grandma's brother-in-law, the GOP staffers and most of my former campaign friends. We're not going to toil for their vision of the world anymore. Now its their turn to carry us. I don't view any Johnson or Clinton supporters with any contempt. I understand their position. But every #NeverTrump Republican, the people who once called Ron Paul a terrorist sympathizer, the people who declared Gary Johnson the next Ralph Nader in 2012, only to hijack his candidacy four years later, destroy it, and then get on the McMullin bandwagon-these people are unforgivable. These people are the real Republican deplorables.

Do hope you realize that your Trumpist "movement" has totally failed to penetrate congressional primaries in its prime, it's disproportionately old, and that Cruz, Rubio, and their ilk will still be around decades after the Trump run has mostly been forgotten outside of weird political history forums

Unlike past movements that have tried to take back the party, the Trump movement is so overwhelming in numbers that the risk of them turning is enough to scare many of our Congresscritters straight. Ask Paul Ryan about his conference call, he can tell you all about it.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Lol, of course shua comes in to defend Antonio for doing things that he himself is actually the worst offender of.

Perhaps people are social justice warriors because there are areas in which society is actually—wait for it—unjust! I realize that might be a novel thought for those with privilege or, on the unfortunate flipside, internalized oppression, but we speak out for a reason. Getting too defensive when someone from a traditionally disadvantaged position shares their truths often reveals that the listener is simply uncomfortable facing hard realities. Take the point that is made, reflect on it, and move on.

Also, I want to clarify that I don't think Tony is a homophobe or wants to "send gays to the back of the bus." But I would argue that he has been privileged not to have the same experiences that many of us queerfolk have, and that not having or understanding these experiences makes it easy for him to get his back up when we bring them into the light. I don't think this makes him an enemy. In fact, it's understandable because we all have our blindspots.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, I want to clarify that I don't think Tony is a homophobe or wants to "send gays to the back of the bus." But I would argue that he has been privileged not to have the same experiences that many of us queerfolk have, and that not having or understanding these experiences makes it easy for him to get his back up when we bring them into the light. I don't think this makes him an enemy. In fact, it's understandable because we all have our blindspots.

Well, yes, I'm privileged for being heterosexual. I'm also privileged for being a guy, for being White, for being from an upper-middle class social background, and for a couple of other things too. I try to be mindful of all these privileges and to modify my behavior so as to avoid abusing them, but I know I'm not doing a perfect job.

If you're saying that privileged people have a duty espouse politics favorable to oppressed groups, guess what, I couldn't agree more! That's why I'm a staunch supporter of LGBT rights, as I have proven over and over.

Now what about you? You might be gay, but you're also a White man, and, unless I'm mistaken, not from a particularly disfavored social background. Are you applying the same logic to those forms of injustice as you want me to apply to LGBT issues? Are you investing the same amount of emotion in them? If you're not, that's your right, but don't come here to lecture me for daring to point out that they're not the only kind of injustice in the world.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Lol, of course shua comes in to defend Antonio for doing things that he himself is actually the worst offender of.

Perhaps people are social justice warriors because there are areas in which society is actually—wait for it—unjust! I realize that might be a novel thought for those with privilege or, on the unfortunate flipside, internalized oppression, but we speak out for a reason. Getting too defensive when someone from a traditionally disadvantaged position shares their truths often reveals that the listener is simply uncomfortable facing hard realities. Take the point that is made, reflect on it, and move on.

Also, I want to clarify that I don't think Tony is a homophobe or wants to "send gays to the back of the bus." But I would argue that he has been privileged not to have the same experiences that many of us queerfolk have, and that not having or understanding these experiences makes it easy for him to get his back up when we bring them into the light. I don't think this makes him an enemy. In fact, it's understandable because we all have our blindspots.

I'm pretty sure that Antonio is not saying that people shouldn't be angry about the daily discrimination and at times even outright cruelty that is often directed against members of the LGBT community.  Instead, he seems to be saying (and rightly so) that the American left seems prone to selective levels outrage on certain issues such as LGBT rights.  In other words, his argument (and Tony can correct me if I'm wrong here) is that it is more than a little hypocritical to arrange boycotts of an entire state for not letting two people marry or use the bathroom of their choice, but not work to create the same sort of pressure on states that are essentially killing people by blocking medicaid expansion or willfully eliminating successful healthcare programs (ex: Kentucky once Bevin was elected).  It isn't a contest; both issues are important.

The fact that people are dying in this country because they lack access to even basic medical care is a crime, but many liberal activists (many conservatives do their own version of this) seem far more concerned with social issues.  Imo this is partly because social issues tend to be easier to boil down into over-simplified, good vs. evil "do this/don't do that" soundbite positions.  

Furthermore, I don't blame Antonio for being defensive since multiple posters have accused him of being a homophobe (which is absurd at best) and others (such as yourself) have been essentially implying that because he might not think that the way members of the LGBT community are treated is the only injustice deserving the left's attention, he needs to check his privilege.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I think we can all agree there are other important issues beside LGBT rights and it doesn't make the LGBT rights any less important.

I deeply care about economic/social issues and it doesn't affect the way I care about the LGBT rights. Why would it?

What I don't approve is a single-issue mentality, no matter what said issue is. It's narrow-minded and counterproductive (and I'm not referring to any poster right now).

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Also, I want to clarify that I don't think Tony is a homophobe or wants to "send gays to the back of the bus." But I would argue that he has been privileged not to have the same experiences that many of us queerfolk have, and that not having or understanding these experiences makes it easy for him to get his back up when we bring them into the light. I don't think this makes him an enemy. In fact, it's understandable because we all have our blindspots.

Well, yes, I'm privileged for being heterosexual. I'm also privileged for being a guy, for being White, for being from an upper-middle class social background, and for a couple of other things too. I try to be mindful of all these privileges and to modify my behavior so as to avoid abusing them, but I know I'm not doing a perfect job.

If you're saying that privileged people have a duty espouse politics favorable to oppressed groups, guess what, I couldn't agree more! That's why I'm a staunch supporter of LGBT rights, as I have proven over and over.

Now what about you? You might be gay, but you're also a White man, and, unless I'm mistaken, not from a particularly disfavored social background. Are you applying the same logic to those forms of injustice as you want me to apply to LGBT issues? Are you investing the same amount of emotion in them? If you're not, that's your right, but don't come here to lecture me for daring to point out that they're not the only kind of injustice in the world.

I'm not saying that you have a duty to do anything, really. I'm just making an observation that could explain your behaviour in this thread. Getting pissed at a gay person for holding people to a higher standard on gay rights issues is a bit... "iffy." Of course I'm more passionate about gay rights, and of course the privileges I have thanks to other aspects of my life have prevented me from being as passionate about other things. It doesn't mean I don't care about the other things. In fact, I try my best to look past my privileges and consider how best I can be an ally (just like you're doing!). I fail at it just as often as I succeed, but I try.

The thing is though, if a black person starts sharing their experiences with systematic racism, or an Indigenous person here in Canada points out when a peer is exhibiting prejudice, I shut up. I don't insinuate that they should care relatively less about their "pet issue" because there are other bad things happening in the world too. That's where things crossed the line and you perhaps didn't "check your privilege" as strictly as you could have.

But the point of my last two posts was actually to kind of... exonerate you. Because certainly I'm not meaning to suggest you are a homophobe. I don't believe that at all. I just believe you had a moment where you revealed that you don't really understand everything about this particular form of oppression... similar to how every other human has their own issue that they will not be able to totally understand. In these instances it's just sometimes better to defer to the "Other." Fair enough?

Because, like... if you find a way to react negatively to this, I really don't know how to help you.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not trying to "find a way to react negatively" to your posts. We just happen to have some fundamental disagreements about how one ought to think of political issues and connect them to judgments about people's morality. I'd appreciate if we could discuss my argument on its own merits without you and others using it to infer things about my ability to empathize with LGBT people (which, I realize is far from perfect, just like my ability to empathize with most people is far from perfect, but this doesn't change the fact that people jumped to this accusation far more quickly than they had any basis to).

I have been arguing for SSM fiercely and fervently for years. I've literally yelled at people (during a class, no less) because they brought up what I believed were bigoted arguments against it. I've also regularly and repeatedly taken the most pro-LGBT stance in nearly all the discussions we've had on these topics here. I was at the forefront of calling out Wolverine's bigotry (which inspired perhaps the only worthwhile post I've ever made on AAD, back when I still posted there). I indeed try to defer a lot to LGBT people on those issues. I've been careful not to take too strong stances on issues I still have some trouble understanding, and I've tried to listen to people's experiences when I had a chance to. Again, I know that I'm not doing as much as I should, about this as well as about my other privileges, but I'm trying.

What I'm questioning here is not your position on any issue, nor is it the passion with which you advocate for LGBT rights. Really, my argument wasn't even directed at you, or at gay posters. I'm talking about a general trend within the broader current of modern American liberalism, to which straight liberals contribute just as much as gay ones. X did a very good job summarizing it, but if you skipped his post, here is it again. There is a general tendency to hold certain specific cultural issues (SSM being the quintessential one, but note that that's not true of all LGBT issues) as the ultimate litmus test for assessing the morality of someone's politics - to the point like someone like TJ, who certainly doesn't seem to have any personal animosity toward LGBT people, has to be a horrible person because he opposes SSM out of religious belief. Meanwhile, people who support equally morally objectionable policies (or worse ones) for equally flimsy (or flimsier) reasons, still get the "nice guy, FF " treatment. Think Vosem or Sanchez.

Now, is it so bad that you, as a gay person, are more emotionally affected by TJ's stance than you are by other equally despicable stances? Of course not. Your emotional reactions are what they are - and considering how erratic my emotions are, I'm in no position to judge you on that. Emotions can't be the end of this conversation, however. Morality is absolute, or it's not morality (if you're a moral relativist, we'll just have to agree to disagree, but hopefully you aren't). Thus, when you're making a judgment about someone's morality, you are trying to transcend your own perspective and reach a sense of the common good. If you fail to do that, and insist on being intransigent on issues that affect you personally while giving everyone a pass on issues that affect people that aren't you just as personally, then your moral judgment is unfair.

Again, I'm sure that I have my own biases, and you are free to point them out to me. But if, as a person with a psychological disability, I started proclaiming that anyone who supports cutting funds for mental health is an irredeemable HP while saying that the WBC crowd are perfectly fine people I just happen to disagree with, you'd have a right to call me out on this. Just because I happen to be unprivileged in this regard doesn't mean my moral judgment should be treated as gospel.

Besides, as I said earlier, my post wasn't really a response to you as much as a general point about the direction of modern liberalism. I certainly wouldn't be challenging your position if you were only a few to hold it. The problem is that the whole American left is embracing it, basically making of SSM (and a couple other issues) the alpha-and-omega of political morality, while shrugging off or only faintly opposing horrific policies that literally kill people and condemn millions to a life of misery. This has terrible consequence for the course of the nation as a whole: it means that some extremely harmful and hateful ideas and attitudes, which should be condemned as something no decent person could believe in, instead go unchallenged. Eventually, these ideas get widely accepted by public opinion, and end up shaping public policy even under a Democratic President. And that's how almost 1 in 5 children in a supposedly developed country can go without enough to eat.

Given all this, I feel that I have not only the right, but the duty to point it out when I see someone contributing to this mentality.