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.

[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.

[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.

[DavidB.]

Great posts, snowguy and afleitch.

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.

Haha, you don't get to act as if you dissociate yourself from the "more annoying elements of the Trump movement" when you have enabled Trump and his movement from day one. The "more annoying elements" (which is the understatement of the year) of the Trump movement are the racist inclinations of its supporters and the anti-democratic attitude of the movement, and neither of these are even remotely part of TJ's brand. You, however, have quite a different record on both of these matters, which makes your accusation even more bizarre.

However, we can all agree that there are things that feel worse than being denied the right to marry, right? And there are people on this very forum who are very vocal about supporting policies that make these things more likely to happen, right? Sure, they might have ostensibly valid reasons for believing those policies are legitimate, but guess what, TJ too has ostensibly valid reasons for opposing SSM. I disagree with those reasons, just like I disagree with the former, but you can't see the validity of the former while pretending the latter don't exist.

Uh yeah, obviously there are things worse than not being allowed to marry the person you love, but it's still pretty f-ing sh-tty and it really seems you're trivializing that once again. People don't have to adhere to your entire personal package of progressive policies to be "allowed" to stand up to injustice against LGBT people.

[DavidB.]

I think Antonio tends to see LGBT causes or the advocates of LGBT causes (i.e. the gay community) as "bourgeois" (by the lack of a better word) and insufficiently progressive on economic issues, and that's why he talks about it like this. That is unfortunate. Accusing him of homophobia/homophobic tendencies, however, is almost certainly a stretch and therefore unfair to him.

[DavidB.]

Thank you for these good, honest posts, Snowguy.

[DavidB.]

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.