Opinion of TJ in Cleve

[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.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

Marriage entitles you to all kinds of benefits both monetary and otherwise.  Trivializing the issue (which is what you are doing here because you lack the experience of somebody who is LGBT) does harm to people who stand to see an increase in quality of life and socioeconomic status thanks to marriage equality.

Also, your argument that gays only care about SSM to the exclusion of other tragic inequalities in our society is kind of bizarre and points at something deeper that you should reflect on.  (If you can't take my advice on that, then take DavidB's advice)

Marginalized groups support each other because we all struggle against an unequal system.  As a white male gay I have seen both sides of this very clearly.  Gays can hide their gayness and be treated normally otherwise... I get all the privilege that white males get in our society so long as I hide my real self.  As long as I live a lie, I'm golden.  But that lie eats at you.  It also leads to confusing signals because we can't /always/ keep up the facade.  And you are mistaking these confusing signals (like Hagrid's former conservatism) as some identity change rather than simply dropping the facade and finding out who he really is.  (Yes.. many LGBT people often don't figure out who they are until long after straight people do.  It's why you often have older/younger relationships in the gay community.  WHo else is going to mentor you?  Your straight teachers?  Your straight parents?  Your straight friends or siblings?)

That you don't understand Hagrid's huge transformation from vaguely right wing straight and square Canadian to here, queer, and without fear speaks to your lack of experience with the in-the-closet/out-of-the-closet dichotomy.  Ask the gay posters here on Atlas... they're all too aware of this.  And we've seen many such transitions. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

Oh for f**k's sake people. I knew that post wasn't going to go over well, but this is f**king ridiculous. The fact that so many people feel the need to go to such lengths after many other posters have already gone to great lengths is quite indicative in itself.

Amid these walls of text there are a few good points that I'd like to acknowledge and a few problematic ones I'd like to push back on, but I have neither time nor will to do so. Maybe another time.

Let me just say, Scott, talking about my "contempt towards the issue of SSM in general" is just plain wrong. Nothing in my posts indicates contempt, please reread them and don't just assume this kind of things. I am a staunch supporter of SSM and have always have argued for it fervently in several instances. It might not come out here that often, because there's absolutely no point in discussing it when 99.9% of the forum supports it and the remaining 0.1% is keeping fairly quiet, but it's come out in real life a few times.

Well, I tried.  And you responded by reaffirming precisely the shortcomings those "walls of text" accused you of having.  You still think this is all about same sex marriage and nothing more..so it all went right over your head.

Whatever. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

You didn't "try", Snowguy. Your post was a rapid succession of misinterpretations (I won't call them strawmen because I want to leave open the remote possibility that you're being in good faith) that had nothing to do with anything I said or believe.

If I had the time and energy, I would be happy to clear things up with thoughtful, well-meaning posters like Scott, Kalwejt or Afleitch, but I certainly wouldn't waste any time on you.

Okie dokie.

[Ban my account ffs!]

To the defense of Antonio. He lives in a country where this issue has been settled for good, the right isn't going to repeal SSM or tries to pass rabid homophobic laws. In the USA, if democrats didn't exist, gay sex would still be criminalized, gays would be discriminated because of muh "religious beliefs" and they couldn't serve in the military either.

If he doesn't give more importance to gay issues, it is because it is settled (mostly) in France.

1. He lives in the USA at the moment.
2. If the United States didn't exist, France would be a province of Nazi Germany and I doubt they'd be too keen on SSM.  If this argument sounds ridiculous, it's because it is.  But it is my comeback to your "if the Democrats didn't exist" argument.

If that's all you have to defend a caustic, insulting, nasty poster like Antonio in the face of many gay posters who have known him for a significant period of time and either disagree or feel insulted by his haughty dismissive and hostile attitude towards them even after they called him out for it...

Then my argument stands.  Antonio is a guy with latent homophobia who perhaps desires not to be...and addresses it by wrapping a thin, transparent blanket of pro-lgbt language around himself.  But it's not enough to let the real problem shine through.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I admit I can't be fair to Antonio because I dislike him.  But if someone sees the causes of the LGBT community as "bourgeois", they are, in my opinion, homophobic.

Homophobia comes in many shapes and sizes... from tolerance but personal disapproval (how many gays on here have experienced this from close family and friends?  Still feels pretty awful!) to outright discrimination to subtle things like minimizing, dismissing or deemphasizing the causes of the LGBT community.

There is a deliberate pushback from Antonio on this issue.  A deliberate minimization and de-emphasis.  And he is saying this to gays on this forum.  He is arguing that gays should be less concerned about their own marginalization and discrimination and more concerned about something else.

What is bourgeois here is the reality that living in a country where many of the causes of the LGBT community have been achieved and aren't under threat allows you to minimize or deemphasize the causes of the LGBT community elsewhere.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'd also like to point out that I could simply be too sensitive to such matters.  I don't think there is malicious intent on Antonio's part.

I bring this up because I see the same pattern of behavior in myself towards race issues.  I can be dismissive or wish to de-emphasize race issues because I don't understand what it is like to be a racial minority.  I especially struggle with racism towards blacks.  I've had some bad experiences of homophobic slurs and threats from a small handful of black men and it has made me scared of them.  I am trying to get over that and I tell myself everyday that these people do not represent the black community... but I still struggle with it and passive racism still comes out.

I'm not just being this way to get a one-up on Antonio.