Are people under 35 who oppose gay marriage typically unintelligent generally?

[bedstuy]

No, and this absurd obsession about SSM support being the great litmus test of "modern" or "enlightened" political views has passed the annoying level and is now starting to look increasingly sinister.

The real problem I have with shaming anti-SSM advocates is not really the shaming itself, but the fact that the same people who speak so passionately about the rightfulness of SSM support and the evil of SSM opponents would never even think about doing the same for other issues (such as economic redistribution), which, let's face it, are infinitely more important.

Completely agree (especially with the bolded part), I have never really gotten the opposition to SSM, mostly because I don't give a f**k about how other people choose to live their lives as long as it don't effect me, but I think the obsession  among some librals to make SSM support the "the great litmus" are disgusting, especially as they mix it (as the person starting this thread) with classism.

If someone tells me, you don't deserve equal rights because of your sexual orientation, that's far more personal than having differing beliefs about a political issue like taxation.  I know it may be hard to understand for straight folks, but it's not easy having people tell you that you're a second class citizen.  I don't think I should have to accept that as a legitimate viewpoint.

[TNF]

No, and this absurd obsession about SSM support being the great litmus test of "modern" or "enlightened" political views has passed the annoying level and is now starting to look increasingly sinister.

The real problem I have with shaming anti-SSM advocates is not really the shaming itself, but the fact that the same people who speak so passionately about the rightfulness of SSM support and the evil of SSM opponents would never even think about doing the same for other issues (such as economic redistribution), which, let's face it, are infinitely more important.

Completely agree (especially with the bolded part), I have never really gotten the opposition to SSM, mostly because I don't give a f**k about how other people choose to live their lives as long as it don't effect me, but I think the obsession  among some librals to make SSM support the "the great litmus" are disgusting, especially as they mix it (as the person starting this thread) with classism.

Liberalism is classist by nature, so I don't think we should be surprised in that regard.

[TNF]

No, and this absurd obsession about SSM support being the great litmus test of "modern" or "enlightened" political views has passed the annoying level and is now starting to look increasingly sinister.

The real problem I have with shaming anti-SSM advocates is not really the shaming itself, but the fact that the same people who speak so passionately about the rightfulness of SSM support and the evil of SSM opponents would never even think about doing the same for other issues (such as economic redistribution), which, let's face it, are infinitely more important.

Completely agree (especially with the bolded part), I have never really gotten the opposition to SSM, mostly because I don't give a f**k about how other people choose to live their lives as long as it don't effect me, but I think the obsession  among some librals to make SSM support the "the great litmus" are disgusting, especially as they mix it (as the person starting this thread) with classism.

If someone tells me, you don't deserve equal rights because of your sexual orientation, that's far more personal than having differing beliefs about a political issue like taxation.  I know it may be hard to understand for straight folks, but it's not easy having people tell you that you're a second class citizen.  I don't think I should have to accept that as legitimate viewpoint.

How can you separate having different beliefs about taxation and not deserving equal rights because of your sexual orientation? What's the dividing line? Taxation and the distribution of income in a society (as well as who owns the way that income is generated) are just as much equal rights issues as those pertaining to sexual orientation, and effect far, far, more people. This isn't to say we should minimize the struggles of LGBTQ people. It is to say, however, that where these homophobic beliefs lie should be analyzed and inspected deeper. Why do people hold homophobic views? For the vast majority of people posting in this thread, that doesn't matter, because people holding views contrary to their own are self-evidently evil. Liberals treat this as an individual failing, rather than what homophobia is and what it actually represents, which is a societal failing to fully educate its population.

Homophobia won't be stopped by forcing homophobes out of prominent positions. Like racism, it'll simply go underground and the words used to express homophobic ideas will change. Homophobia will only end if the system of exploitation which creates inequities in education (so as to provide a cheap and docile labor force for said system) and other public facilities, are totally ended. We hear a lot about same-sex marriage, and there's been definite progress on that front, but we should not kid ourselves into thinking that homophobia will wither away once LGBTQ Americans can marry.

[bedstuy]

No, and this absurd obsession about SSM support being the great litmus test of "modern" or "enlightened" political views has passed the annoying level and is now starting to look increasingly sinister.

The real problem I have with shaming anti-SSM advocates is not really the shaming itself, but the fact that the same people who speak so passionately about the rightfulness of SSM support and the evil of SSM opponents would never even think about doing the same for other issues (such as economic redistribution), which, let's face it, are infinitely more important.

Completely agree (especially with the bolded part), I have never really gotten the opposition to SSM, mostly because I don't give a f**k about how other people choose to live their lives as long as it don't effect me, but I think the obsession  among some librals to make SSM support the "the great litmus" are disgusting, especially as they mix it (as the person starting this thread) with classism.

If someone tells me, you don't deserve equal rights because of your sexual orientation, that's far more personal than having differing beliefs about a political issue like taxation.  I know it may be hard to understand for straight folks, but it's not easy having people tell you that you're a second class citizen.  I don't think I should have to accept that as legitimate viewpoint.

How can you separate having different beliefs about taxation and not deserving equal rights because of your sexual orientation? What's the dividing line? Taxation and the distribution of income in a society (as well as who owns the way that income is generated) are just as much equal rights issues as those pertaining to sexual orientation, and effect far, far, more people. This isn't to say we should minimize the struggles of LGBTQ people. It is to say, however, that where these homophobic beliefs lie should be analyzed and inspected deeper. Why do people hold homophobic views? For the vast majority of people posting in this thread, that doesn't matter, because people holding views contrary to their own are self-evidently evil. Liberals treat this as an individual failing, rather than what homophobia is and what it actually represents, which is a societal failing to fully educate its population.

Homophobia won't be stopped by forcing homophobes out of prominent positions. Like racism, it'll simply go underground and the words used to express homophobic ideas will change. Homophobia will only end if the system of exploitation which creates inequities in education (so as to provide a cheap and docile labor force for said system) and other public facilities, are totally ended. We hear a lot about same-sex marriage, and there's been definite progress on that front, but we should not kid ourselves into thinking that homophobia will wither away once LGBTQ Americans can marry.

I have close friends who are free market libertarians and friends who are socialists.  Those are political opinions where reasonable people can disagree.  If someone is a homophobe or a racist, their beliefs relate directly to me and are an attack on me.  I wouldn't hire a homophobe to work for me and I wouldn't be friends with them.     

As for the point about ending homphobia, I disagree.  I remember this country ten years ago, it's amazing how far we've come.  Part of that evolution is actually creating communities where gay people are safe.  Creating safe spaces and communities where gay people can be themselves actually requires that there is a social intolerance of hatred and oppression of gay people.  You can't have a tolerant environment that sanctions homophobia.  That's why any decent business, political or social organization, church or school is not going to tolerate homophobia.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I have close friends who are free market libertarians and friends who are socialists.  Those are political opinions where reasonable people can disagree.  If someone is a homophobe or a racist, their beliefs relate directly to me and are an attack on me.  I wouldn't hire a homophobe to work for me and I wouldn't be friends with them.

The views of "market libertarians" are responsible for infinitely more harm toward actual people than those of a random dude who happens to oppose SSM (which, again, does NOT make him a homophobe).

[IceSpear]

Jesus ing Christ, this thread is depressing.

Guys, we obviously all support SSM here and there's no need for everyone to restate their passionate defense of it. But no, not everyone who opposes it is a bigot/homophobe, and I've actually met several decent people (including - shocker!!! - some gay people) who oppose it. Sure, you can make the interracial marriage analogy or whatever, it looks great at first glance but it doesn't say anything about why some people might not be comfortable with SSM, where the reasons are obviously infinitely more vast.

The real problem I have with shaming anti-SSM advocates is not really the shaming itself, but the fact that the same people who speak so passionately about the rightfulness of SSM support and the evil of SSM opponents would never even think about doing the same for other issues (such as economic redistribution), which, let's face it, are infinitely more important.

I'm sure there were many decent people who opposed interracial marriage as well in the 60s...considering 70-80% of the country opposed it then. Yet today, we would preclude anyone who opposes interracial marriage as being a decent person, even if they were perfect in every other way. The reasons are not "infinitely more vast". Literally the same exact arguments used against interracial marriage are also used against gay marriage, with the addition of the "procreation" thing which we all know is completely irrelevant to marriage these days.

As to your second paragraph, this is why straight people don't get it. Obviously to you there is always going to be "more important issues" than discrimination targeting minority groups. But I'd imagine said minority group would have quite a different view of the situation. If suddenly there was a new law saying that "people with the username Antonio V on the Atlas Forum are now forbidden to get married, can be fired at will, and cannot serve in the military" you wouldn't be going around talking about how it's irrelevant and there's "more important issues". You'd be outraged and constantly ranting about it, and rightfully so.

[Sol]

Classism and Homophobia are equally evil and bigoted, of course. But this dumb stuff of why do teh gayz get all the attention grows tiresome, and it actually ignores the ways that rights for Gender, Sexual, and Romantic minorities intersect deeply with creating a more just society on the economic level.

[TNF]

"Reasonable people" can disagree over whether or not 9/10ths of mankind should live a miserable, dreadful, and decrepit existence, but they cannot disagree on sexual orientation? Perhaps you should go one step further and make the (much more logical) argument that "reasonable people" can instead disagree only over the course of how that 9/10ths of mankind be freed from the drudgery of daily life. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if someone is a capitalist or supports capitalism, that that belief or their actions as such are an attack upon almost all mankind in the same manner that you're describing homophobic or racist belief as an attack upon you personally.

But I understand that we live in a complicated world that is, with few exceptions, the result of forces set in motion by the relationship all of us have with one another. And so I have friends that are capitalists, friends that are socialists, and friends that hold bigoted views or make bigoted remarks from time to time (including a good deal of my family). The fact that such bigotry and such misplaced or misdirected anger at certain groups of society by other groups within that society exists is unfortunate and should be remedied with education and dialogue between said groups, not by shutting people out entirely and denigrating them as social outcasts because of supposed individual failings. Homophobia, racism, sexism, etc, etc. should not and cannot be boiled down to the failings of individuals, because the individuals who display these behaviors, with few exceptions, got those as a result of some kind of social failure. Maybe their schools weren't very good. Maybe they were purposefully taught wrong so as to keep them from collaborating with others (this is especially true in the South, where white and black were kept separate for fear of their unity undermining the established way of things). Maybe they haven't been exposed to the realities of homophobia, what it does to people, how it affects people, etc, etc. It is very naive and very shortsighted to regard these as the problems of individuals, rather than as the problems of society at-large.

I don't disagree about the need to create safe spaces. I think that it's very important that we eliminate official bigotry and official homophobia insofar as possible. We need workplace protections for LGBTQ Americans. We need homeless shelters for LGBTQ youth cast out by their homophobic parents. We need to allow same-sex couples to marry and adopt children. But we don't need to lose sight of the fact that even with all these things, homophobia will not vanish overnight. The only way you're going to truly eliminate homophobia is to eliminate the overarching system of exploitation that employs homophobia to its own ends (as it also employs racism, sexism, and other bigotries).

[IceSpear]

Classism is not equivalent to racism/sexism/homophobia for one simple reason: you can change your class, you can't change your race, gender, or sexuality.

Of course, it's getting harder and harder to move upward in class. But it's still possible. And of course it will always be possible to move downward, just blow all your money on drugs and prostitutes.

[Sol]

"Reasonable people" can disagree over whether or not 9/10ths of mankind should live a miserable, dreadful, and decrepit existence, but they cannot disagree on sexual orientation? Perhaps you should go one step further and make the (much more logical) argument that "reasonable people" can instead disagree only over the course of how that 9/10ths of mankind be freed from the drudgery of daily life. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if someone is a capitalist or supports capitalism, that that belief or their actions as such are an attack upon almost all mankind in the same manner that you're describing homophobic or racist belief as an attack upon you personally.

But I understand that we live in a complicated world that is, with few exceptions, the result of forces set in motion by the relationship all of us have with one another. And so I have friends that are capitalists, friends that are socialists, and friends that hold bigoted views or make bigoted remarks from time to time (including a good deal of my family). The fact that such bigotry and such misplaced or misdirected anger at certain groups of society by other groups within that society exists is unfortunate and should be remedied with education and dialogue between said groups, not by shutting people out entirely and denigrating them as social outcasts because of supposed individual failings. Homophobia, racism, sexism, etc, etc. should not and cannot be boiled down to the failings of individuals, because the individuals who display these behaviors, with few exceptions, got those as a result of some kind of social failure. Maybe their schools weren't very good. Maybe they were purposefully taught wrong so as to keep them from collaborating with others (this is especially true in the South, where white and black were kept separate for fear of their unity undermining the established way of things). Maybe they haven't been exposed to the realities of homophobia, what it does to people, how it affects people, etc, etc. It is very naive and very shortsighted to regard these as the problems of individuals, rather than as the problems of society at-large.

I don't disagree about the need to create safe spaces. I think that it's very important that we eliminate official bigotry and official homophobia insofar as possible. We need workplace protections for LGBTQ Americans. We need homeless shelters for LGBTQ youth cast out by their homophobic parents. We need to allow same-sex couples to marry and adopt children. But we don't need to lose sight of the fact that even with all these things, homophobia will not vanish overnight. The only way you're going to truly eliminate homophobia is to eliminate the overarching system of exploitation that employs homophobia to its own ends (as it also employs racism, sexism, and other bigotries).

I don't know if this is in response to my post or what, but I agree.

Classism is not equivalent to racism/sexism/homophobia for one simple reason: you can change your class, you can't change your race, gender, or sexuality.

It's much less easy to move up the socioeconomic ladder than one would suppose.

And people change race all the time, although less so now than before.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This thread is going well.

[afleitch]

For me it's a matter of SSM no longer being merely a concept and actually being something that people do and you might know them. If that doesn't make a difference to your views, or entrenches them, then yes I think someone must be lacking in empathy.

If someone comes up to me and says 'you should not be married to your husband because he is another man' then I fail to see how that cannot be a homophobic position because it is dismissive of a union based solely on gender. It dismisses the two people involved based on a outward characteristic.

[TNF]

Classism is not equivalent to racism/sexism/homophobia for one simple reason: you can change your class, you can't change your race, gender, or sexuality.

Of course, it's getting harder and harder to move upward in class. But it's still possible. And of course it will always be possible to move downward, just blow all your money on drugs and prostitutes.

Sure, if you win the lottery. The vast majority of people do not change their class position throughout their lifetime, and such is true throughout the history of human civilization.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If I was forbidden to marry I'd obviously be quite pissed off, but that wouldn't change the fact that there are thousands of political issues more pressing than my ability to marry someone. Including the ability of millions of people to just feed themselves and their children, for God's sake. I thought that would be obvious to anyone who isn't completely deluded.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think Alcon put it best a couple years ago, when he said that he simply can't respect any opposition to SSM because no arguments against it are logical or work with him on any level. It's basically all either Bible thumping or throwing out tortured Hifly semantical "logic" and because the arguments are just soooooooo bad, he can't respect the position or consider it valid on any level. It's different for something that he might vehemently disagree with, but is a defensible position. It's really just a case of lack of ambiguity.

[Sol]

If I was forbidden to marry I'd obviously be quite pissed off, but that wouldn't change the fact that there are thousands of political issues more pressing than my ability to marry someone. Including the ability of millions of people to just feed themselves and their children, for God's sake. I thought that would be obvious to anyone who isn't completely deluded.

Antonio, I understand where you're coming from here, but you do need to remember that we can do more than one thing.

Also, LGBTQQA rights are about more than just SSM, of course, tho that's a natural part of it.

[afleitch]

If I was forbidden to marry I'd obviously be quite pissed off, but that wouldn't change the fact that there are thousands of political issues more pressing than my ability to marry someone. Including the ability of millions of people to just feed themselves and their children, for God's sake. I thought that would be obvious to anyone who isn't completely deluded.

In the same vein, women's education and their control over their own bodies is one of the most powerful methods in tacking poverty. But maybe we should focus on feeding them and their children because that's much more pressing. It's 'bigger' than the other issue. I never thought of you as in favour of 'top down' methods to deal with social ills.

[IceSpear]

Classism is not equivalent to racism/sexism/homophobia for one simple reason: you can change your class, you can't change your race, gender, or sexuality.

It's much less easy to move up the socioeconomic ladder than one would suppose.

Yes, I agree. It is an enormous problem that upward mobility is declining and it needs to be addressed. But because class is not an intrinsic or permanent characteristic, I would not put it on the same level as race, gender, sexuality etc. based discrimination.

Classism is not equivalent to racism/sexism/homophobia for one simple reason: you can change your class, you can't change your race, gender, or sexuality.

Of course, it's getting harder and harder to move upward in class. But it's still possible. And of course it will always be possible to move downward, just blow all your money on drugs and prostitutes.

Sure, if you win the lottery. The vast majority of people do not change their class position throughout their lifetime, and such is true throughout the history of human civilization.

Do you honestly believe that you need to hit the lottery? Have you never met anybody in your every day life that was raised poor or lower class and is now middle class, well off, or even rich?

You are correct that the vast majority do not, and it is a major problem. But you're being excessively hyperbolic by suggesting your only chance of doing so is hitting the lottery.

[Sol]

Classism is not equivalent to racism/sexism/homophobia for one simple reason: you can change your class, you can't change your race, gender, or sexuality.

It's much less easy to move up the socioeconomic ladder than one would suppose.

Yes, I agree. It is an enormous problem that upward mobility is declining and it needs to be addressed. But because class is not an intrinsic or permanent characteristic, I would not put it on the same level as race, gender, sexuality etc. based discrimination.

Why is it more acceptable to discriminate against someone because that characteristic is not intrinsic?

Right now we don't have a super-good understanding of why people are gay. If a study came out proving conclusively (which is unlikely scientifically but not impossible) that being gay is innate and can be changed with careful discipline, would homophobia become more justifiable in your eyes? After all, it wouldn't be an intrinsic or permanent characteristic?

[TNF]

I have met few people who have moved from the working class into the capitalist class, because nearly everyone I know falls into the former category, rather than the latter. My social circle is largely confined to working class people; I can only off the top of my head name a few people that I know that are petit bourgeois business owners, and no persons that are actual members of the bourgeoisie, that is, folks who live primarily off of investments. This shouldn't be surprising, given the area that I live in and the fact that most Americans are working class.

'Winning the lottery' is an expression, but it is not without merit, given that success in capitalist society is almost wholly based upon luck, rather than actual merit.

[Cassius]

If I was forbidden to marry I'd obviously be quite pissed off, but that wouldn't change the fact that there are thousands of political issues more pressing than my ability to marry someone. Including the ability of millions of people to just feed themselves and their children, for God's sake. I thought that would be obvious to anyone who isn't completely deluded.

With the greatest of respect Antonio, we can't all be Jesus. The fact is, however uncomfortable it may make some people feel, most people will, throughout their lives, have their energies mostly preoccupied with fighting their own little corner, for themselves, for their friends, for their family. I know, perhaps, these travails seem inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but to the individuals involved, these issues will be more important to them than the fate of groups of people whom they are unlikely to meet. This is not delusion; in fact (though I wouldn't take this position) it is quite arguable that those who ignore their own interests in favour of helping an amorphous mass of unknowns are in fact the deluded ones. As I said, I wouldn't take this view, since I find the latter position are rather admirable one in its own little way. But, back to the point, people have their own interests, interests which are important to them, and even if we disagree with said interests, we should not look down upon those people. Such is life.

I'm not trying to be wise of profound, because, hey, I'm neither. That's just what I think.

[Sol]

I have met few people who have moved from the working class into the capitalist class, because nearly everyone I know falls into the former category, rather than the latter. My social circle is largely confined to working class people; I can only off the top of my head name a few people that I know that are petit bourgeois business owners, and no persons that are actual members of the bourgeoisie, that is, folks who live primarily off of investments. This shouldn't be surprising, given the area that I live in and the fact that most Americans are working class.

'Winning the lottery' is an expression, but it is not without merit, given that success in capitalist society is almost wholly based upon luck, rather than actual merit.

If I may go off on a tangent...

I think that one factor that might improve economic mobility is a decrease in residential segregation by class. For instance, the county I live in (Watauga) is very diverse class-wise. The rich and middle class folks (plus a local uni) mean that the public schools are very good, a factor which means that a lot of poorer folks can get a pretty good education- as well as better chances at getting into college.

A close friend of mine's family is quite poor- they're way below the poverty line. But her brother is going to NC State, and she's looking at some top-flight schools where she's likely to get merit aid.

That's not saying that any of that is normal, or that poor folks in Watauga County are able to move up in terms of class in large numbers (although certainly larger than most places) - rather, accelerating upward mobility could be helped by (among other things) government planning to make the nicest suburbs and school districts affordable to live in by low-income families, as well as abolishing the private schools that would inevitably result from such a move.

[IceSpear]

Classism is not equivalent to racism/sexism/homophobia for one simple reason: you can change your class, you can't change your race, gender, or sexuality.

It's much less easy to move up the socioeconomic ladder than one would suppose.

Yes, I agree. It is an enormous problem that upward mobility is declining and it needs to be addressed. But because class is not an intrinsic or permanent characteristic, I would not put it on the same level as race, gender, sexuality etc. based discrimination.

Why is it more acceptable to discriminate against someone because that characteristic is not intrinsic?

Right now we don't have a super-good understanding of why people are gay. If a study came out proving conclusively (which is unlikely scientifically but not impossible) that being gay is innate and can be changed with careful discipline, would homophobia become more justifiable in your eyes? After all, it wouldn't be an intrinsic or permanent characteristic?

It isn't "more acceptable", but it isn't the same thing either. It's comparing apples and oranges.

I have met few people who have moved from the working class into the capitalist class, because nearly everyone I know falls into the former category, rather than the latter. My social circle is largely confined to working class people; I can only off the top of my head name a few people that I know that are petit bourgeois business owners, and no persons that are actual members of the bourgeoisie, that is, folks who live primarily off of investments. This shouldn't be surprising, given the area that I live in and the fact that most Americans are working class.

'Winning the lottery' is an expression, but it is not without merit, given that success in capitalist society is almost wholly based upon luck, rather than actual merit.

What about doctors who were raised in poor or working class families? Would you say they didn't move up in class just because they don't live off investments?

[bedstuy]

"Reasonable people" can disagree over whether or not 9/10ths of mankind should live a miserable, dreadful, and decrepit existence, but they cannot disagree on sexual orientation? Perhaps you should go one step further and make the (much more logical) argument that "reasonable people" can instead disagree only over the course of how that 9/10ths of mankind be freed from the drudgery of daily life. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if someone is a capitalist or supports capitalism, that that belief or their actions as such are an attack upon almost all mankind in the same manner that you're describing homophobic or racist belief as an attack upon you personally.

But I understand that we live in a complicated world that is, with few exceptions, the result of forces set in motion by the relationship all of us have with one another. And so I have friends that are capitalists, friends that are socialists, and friends that hold bigoted views or make bigoted remarks from time to time (including a good deal of my family). The fact that such bigotry and such misplaced or misdirected anger at certain groups of society by other groups within that society exists is unfortunate and should be remedied with education and dialogue between said groups, not by shutting people out entirely and denigrating them as social outcasts because of supposed individual failings. Homophobia, racism, sexism, etc, etc. should not and cannot be boiled down to the failings of individuals, because the individuals who display these behaviors, with few exceptions, got those as a result of some kind of social failure. Maybe their schools weren't very good. Maybe they were purposefully taught wrong so as to keep them from collaborating with others (this is especially true in the South, where white and black were kept separate for fear of their unity undermining the established way of things). Maybe they haven't been exposed to the realities of homophobia, what it does to people, how it affects people, etc, etc. It is very naive and very shortsighted to regard these as the problems of individuals, rather than as the problems of society at-large.

I don't disagree about the need to create safe spaces. I think that it's very important that we eliminate official bigotry and official homophobia insofar as possible. We need workplace protections for LGBTQ Americans. We need homeless shelters for LGBTQ youth cast out by their homophobic parents. We need to allow same-sex couples to marry and adopt children. But we don't need to lose sight of the fact that even with all these things, homophobia will not vanish overnight. The only way you're going to truly eliminate homophobia is to eliminate the overarching system of exploitation that employs homophobia to its own ends (as it also employs racism, sexism, and other bigotries).

Don't lecture me about tolerating homophobia.  I'm gay.  I know more about tolerating homophobia than you'll ever know, out of necessity.  And, yes, I know that people who are racist or homophobic are not evil people.  They're ignorant, flawed human beings like the rest of us.  That doesn't mean that I need to respect their beliefs or allow them to espouse them without any response.

You see, there's a difference between toleration and acceptance.  I don't accept beliefs that would marginalize who I am.  It's not that my sexual orientation is important to the world.  It's that opposing homophobia is self-defense for me.  I wish homosexuality was a non-issue, because I don't want to deal with it.  As an activist and a volunteer, I work on poverty issues 90% at least.  That's what I care about.  But, when someone attacks my civil rights, they're trying to boot me out of civil society.  So, as a gay man, fighting for my own equality is part and parcel of everything I care about in the world.  Being equal means that I get to a seat at the table in the struggle for everything else.

[Sol]

"Reasonable people" can disagree over whether or not 9/10ths of mankind should live a miserable, dreadful, and decrepit existence, but they cannot disagree on sexual orientation? Perhaps you should go one step further and make the (much more logical) argument that "reasonable people" can instead disagree only over the course of how that 9/10ths of mankind be freed from the drudgery of daily life. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if someone is a capitalist or supports capitalism, that that belief or their actions as such are an attack upon almost all mankind in the same manner that you're describing homophobic or racist belief as an attack upon you personally.

But I understand that we live in a complicated world that is, with few exceptions, the result of forces set in motion by the relationship all of us have with one another. And so I have friends that are capitalists, friends that are socialists, and friends that hold bigoted views or make bigoted remarks from time to time (including a good deal of my family). The fact that such bigotry and such misplaced or misdirected anger at certain groups of society by other groups within that society exists is unfortunate and should be remedied with education and dialogue between said groups, not by shutting people out entirely and denigrating them as social outcasts because of supposed individual failings. Homophobia, racism, sexism, etc, etc. should not and cannot be boiled down to the failings of individuals, because the individuals who display these behaviors, with few exceptions, got those as a result of some kind of social failure. Maybe their schools weren't very good. Maybe they were purposefully taught wrong so as to keep them from collaborating with others (this is especially true in the South, where white and black were kept separate for fear of their unity undermining the established way of things). Maybe they haven't been exposed to the realities of homophobia, what it does to people, how it affects people, etc, etc. It is very naive and very shortsighted to regard these as the problems of individuals, rather than as the problems of society at-large.

I don't disagree about the need to create safe spaces. I think that it's very important that we eliminate official bigotry and official homophobia insofar as possible. We need workplace protections for LGBTQ Americans. We need homeless shelters for LGBTQ youth cast out by their homophobic parents. We need to allow same-sex couples to marry and adopt children. But we don't need to lose sight of the fact that even with all these things, homophobia will not vanish overnight. The only way you're going to truly eliminate homophobia is to eliminate the overarching system of exploitation that employs homophobia to its own ends (as it also employs racism, sexism, and other bigotries).

Don't lecture me about tolerating homophobia.  I'm gay.  I know more about tolerating homophobia than you'll ever know, out of necessity.  And, yes, I know that people who are racist or homophobic are not evil people.  They're ignorant, flawed human beings like the rest of us.  That doesn't mean that I need to respect their beliefs or allow them to espouse them without any response.

You see, there's a difference between toleration and acceptance.  I don't accept beliefs that would marginalize who I am.  It's not that my sexual orientation is important to the world.  It's that opposing homophobia is self-defense for me.  I wish homosexuality was a non-issue, because I don't want to deal with it.  As an activist and a volunteer, I work on poverty issues 90% at least.  That's what I care about.  But, when someone attacks my civil rights, they're trying to boot me out of civil society.  So, as a gay man, fighting for my own equality is part and parcel of everything I care about in the world.  Being equal means that I get to a seat at the table in the struggle for everything else.

Of course, Bedstuy. But it's also crucial to keep in mind that people don't always believe bigoted things because they're bigots (or stupid or whatever), but because they have simply gotten a painfully wrong idea into their heads. What is important is to convert those people to the side of justice by any reasonable means necessary, until the kyriarchy collapses in on itself. The same goes for classists, misogynists, racists, etc. Which I think is TNF's point.