Opinion of TJ in Cleve

[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.

[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.

[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?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I understand that it hits close to home. I can't know how it feels and as such I can't comment on whether you are justified to react the way you did.

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.

I’m sure he will say he has reasons for opposing marriage equality, just like how he has reasons for opposing, say, single-payer health care. I am willing to forgive him on something like health care because I have judged that there’s enough minutia and complexity involved with the issue that somebody could reasonably come up with coherent opposition to single-payer—even though, yes, that opposition might have the effect of hurting people.

With regards to marriage equality, TJ’s beliefs may be just as sincerely held, but the consequences of them are just so overwhelmingly clear, at least from my perspective, that I’m not willing to forgive him for it. It takes more stupidity, hatred, closed-mindedness or a combination of the three to be against gay marriage than it does to be against single-payer—even if he’s found a way to do sufficient mental gymnastics to trick himself into thinking he’s doing the right thing.

So I guess I miscommunicated at first. It’s not just about the person’s sincerity or intentions or, as I said before, “heart.” It’s about me establishing admittedly subjective criteria regarding which issues I believe should simply be no-brainers. I’m kind of talking in circles, but I think equal marriage is harder to get wrong than economic policy. And if someone manages to get it wrong, I’ll judge that person’s character accordingly. Maybe it’s indicative of stupidity or ignorance as opposed to heartlessness, but those are still pretty sh-tty characteristics.

Anyway, I apologize for derailing the thread!

[HagridOfTheDeep]

^Also, many gay people just plainly see questions about gay marriage as proxies for questions about the general value of gay people.

Opposition to marriage equality can involve various justifications, but none of them could be so construed as to hold gay people in high or equal regard.

- ew, gays (gay people are gross/funny/disturbing/perverted/sick)
- muh bible says men should not lie with men (gay people are morally inferior)
- something about tradition (it's simply not worth accommodating gay people)

Tell me where there's room in an anti-SSM position for the person with this stance to claim that they're a-okay with the queers and "really not homophobic, believe me." It implicitly signifies a belief that LGBT folk are "less than."

[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.

[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.