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.
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.
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.
Look at me. 4 years ago I was a right wingnut who loved Fox News and the like. Now, I call myself more liberal than many here on the forum, even if that doesn't come through with my posts.
Poll
