Thursday, October 22, 2015

The LGBT divide

I think there's actually a split in the pro-LGBT community on the issue of marriage. There is a conservative wing of it that basically says that traditional marriage is just fine, it just needs to be extended to same-sex couples. This is typical of Christian supporters of SSM such as Matthew Vines. They believe in such things as lifetime commitment, two and only two partners, marital fidelity, etc., they just think that for people who are gay in their orientation, they should exercise that with a partner of the same sex. Such people would be embarrassed, I think by Richard Carrier's adaptation of LGBT rhetoric to support polyamory.

People like Gessen are on the radical wing of the pro-LGBT movement, they are happy to see the opposite sex requirement eliminated for marriage, but they reject the rest of traditional marriage as well.

The difference between these two wings has been de-emphasized during the battle for SSM. After Obergfell, I strongly suspect that this disagreement develop more and more into a debate within the pro-LGBT community.

12 comments:

JaredMithrandir said...

Or we could like at my position which is that Legal marriage should not be engage din my Christians anyway and so this whole fight is a distraction.

http://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/search/label/Biblical%20Marriage

Hugo Pelland said...

Victor, good summary of the different viewpoints. The choice of words sounds a bit strange though...

"conservative wing of it that basically says that traditional marriage is just fine, it just needs to be extended to same-sex couples"
Does 'conservative' here means nothing more than what the rest of the sentence describe? Because I would personally never ever identify myself as a 'conservative' but totally agree with what you wrote, and what Christians like Matthew Vines believe apparently.

"Such people would be embarrassed, I think by Richard Carrier's adaptation of LGBT rhetoric to support polyamory. "
Why should anyone be 'embarrassed' rather than simply 'in disagreement' with that Carrier says?

"People like Gessen are on the radical wing of the pro-LGBT movement, they are happy to see the opposite sex requirement eliminated for marriage, but they reject the rest of traditional marriage as well."
What makes you think that this is a 'radical wing' aspect, or a 'radical opinion'? As you pointed out by showing her quote, she is willing to lie to support same-sex marriage, which is ridiculous, but what's 'radical' about her idea regarding marriage in general?,Or what's radical about her and her 'wing' of the pro-LGBT movement? Honestly, I know nothing about her so if you have examples of why you think she is a radical that would be interesting to read.

Hugo Pelland said...

p.s. well, actually, I ran into this just now:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/29/lesbian-activists-surprisingly-candid-speech-gay-marriage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/

I would agree that this is definitely very 'original', or just plain 'weird' if you want, since this is a complete departure from the traditional notion of a family, with 2 parents and children. At the same time, I am still wondering about the term 'radical' since I would usually associate this with someone trying to get something done no matter what the consequences are. Here, she is arguing more about her own choices, which we can disagree with, rather than trying to impose anything else on others. Maybe we just use these adjectives differently...

Crude said...

Victor,

There is a conservative wing of it that basically says that traditional marriage is just fine, it just needs to be extended to same-sex couples.

I would think the conservative wing are those who think 'traditional marriage' is between a man and a woman, and alternately either would like civil unions, or just plain don't care about that culture war.

There are, in fact, sane LGBT people.

Because I would personally never ever identify myself as a 'conservative'

Of course not, you'd be kicked out of your community.

Pelland,

Here, she is arguing more about her own choices, which we can disagree with, rather than trying to impose anything else on others.

She is attempting to impose something else on the community. 'I force you to give me what I want, to give me the recognition that I demand, the respect that I demand, while demonizing those who dissent' is an imposition.

Hugo Pelland said...

"Of course not, you'd be kicked out of your community."
What community?

"She is attempting to impose something..."
You might be right. I don't see this from these words alone though. That's why I was asking for more references actually. Just like sane LGBT golks exist, insane ones do exist of course...

"...while demonizing..."
Which is what you are doing Crude, obviously. From your righteous end it's acceptable I guess?

Hugo Pelland said...

"Of course not, you'd be kicked out of your community."
What community?

"She is attempting to impose something..."
You might be right. I don't see this from these words alone though. That's why I was asking for more references actually. Just like sane LGBT golks exist, insane ones do exist of course...

"...while demonizing..."
Which is what you are doing Crude, obviously. From your righteous end it's acceptable I guess?

Crude said...

What community?

Social liberals.

You might be right. I don't see this from these words alone though.

It's implicit in the act of 'redefining' marriage, yet again.

Which is what you are doing Crude, obviously. From your righteous end it's acceptable I guess?

Demonize? Since when? I point out bullshit when it's bullshit, and there's a lot floating around.

Hugo Pelland said...

What community?
"Social liberals."


I wonder what this means Crude honestly... is it just yet another cheap attempt at labeling me with something you think it's bad, or do you really see this as something meaningful? Basically, is there really, to you, something like a 'Social Liberal' community that I could be part of / be kicked out of?

Also, if there are people that do kick people out because of diverging opinions, it's certainly the Religious Fundamentalists, including the American Conservative Christians, whose families are so intolerant that even their own children are at the mercy of the religious doctrine. Should they not comply, they might be asked to not contact the family again (think of gay or atheists kids who are kicked out because the parents disagree). It's actually very similar to conservative Muslims or Hindus and the protection of their honor, where their force their daughters to marry within the community.

Demonize? Since when? I point out bullshit when it's bullshit, and there's a lot floating around.

Well, as I said, I did make this more personal than I needed to, but you certainly demonize me personally a lot more than you needed to as well. Calling my marriage meaningless and suggesting people should actively seduce my wife, just because we are not sure if we want children yet, definitely falls under demonizing. Another example is this person you accused of "attempting to impose something else on the community", when there is no indication of such attempts, only divergence of opinion. When she says 'why would I stick to a traditional marriage', people like you see this as meaning 'traditional marriage should be banned.' When people argue against the 'institution of marriage', they don't want to impose anything on you, they want you to stop imposing your views on them.

Crude said...

Hugo,

I wonder what this means Crude honestly... is it just yet another cheap attempt at labeling me with something you think it's bad, or do you really see this as something meaningful? Basically, is there really, to you, something like a 'Social Liberal' community that I could be part of / be kicked out of?

No, there's not 'to me' a social liberal community. It's a pretty obvious one that exists. And you're the one who got spooked just because a particular view was labeled 'conservative', complete with you objecting that you'd never identify yourself as such.

Let me guess: a conservative community exists, but a liberal community is just a paranoid delusion?

Also, if there are people that do kick people out because of diverging opinions, it's certainly the Religious Fundamentalists, including the American Conservative Christians, whose families are so intolerant that even their own children are at the mercy of the religious doctrine.

Oh look, I didn't have to even wait for the reply. The conservative community certainly exists, and they do kick out people with the wrong views.

But liberals
certainly never punish
nor censor
or especially never ostracize those they disagree with.

You know why you generally don't hear stories about atheist parents kicking out their children for their religiosity? Because atheists tend not to get married or have kids.

Calling my marriage meaningless and suggesting people should actively seduce my wife, just because we are not sure if we want children yet,

First off, it's not 'we' according to you. You do, she doesn't right now, and may never.

Second, no - I asked what would be wrong with that. I mean, what - you have control over your wife's sex life now? Is that the claim? Or is it that you have a social arrangement that you expect others to view in a certain sense - in one sense, somewhat traditional - and they should respect that, to the point of altering their behavior around you and your wife?

Which is why this response:

When people argue against the 'institution of marriage', they don't want to impose anything on you,

..Is so damn funny.

'We don't want to impose anything on you. We just demand you praise our arrangements, take part in them even when you don't want to (and we'll target you for this in particular if we think you have a moral objection), attack you in public for criticism of our arrangement, and more!'

So, Hugo, if a man seduces and knocks your wife up, he hasn't imposed anything on you. He's simply made a free choice, as did your wife, and they did nothing wrong whatsoever. They have updated and reconsidered your relationship, particularly one of its 'traditional' aspects, as is their right, and to suggest they behave otherwise is a clear imposition on your reactionist part.

Correct?

Hugo Pelland said...

"you're the one who got spooked just because a particular view was labeled 'conservative'"
Spooked? I thought it was interesting that because I personally value traditional marriage, this somehow means that I have a 'conservative' view of marriage. I think's it's inaccurate because my view of marriage is certainly not conservative, since it seems that conservatives want their view of marriage to be the norm, and I think it's a personal liberty.

"a conservative community exists, but a liberal community is just a paranoid delusion?"
I don't think either 'community' exists because the terms are way too broad. That's why I was asking you. You sound annoyed just because I asked the question...

"The conservative community certainly exists, and they do kick out people"
No, that's not what it meant... a 'family' is certainly a form 'community' that one can get kicked out. Families that self-identify as 'conservative' are, by definition, putting greater value on preserving traditions, fitting in with the group, rather than accepting new ideas and embracing diversity. Most people fall between the 2 extremes of course.

"But liberals certainly never punish nor censor or especially never ostracize those they disagree with"
Any group of individuals will include a vast diversity of individuals. So of course Liberals do all of those things, and we can debate on whether it's the right thing to do, or not. Personally, I would by default be against such punishment or censorship. Regarding these examples, for instance:
- Mozilla was wrong to look at their CEO's view on something that has nothing to do with his job. It's an anti-liberal view to dismiss someone because of their views on an issue.
- The issue of the shirt, in the Time article, is not something I heard before. It seems that judging someone for a shirt alone is absurd, and again, an anti-liberal view since it punishes someone for a clothing choice. There could be exceptions I suppose, but it does not seem that this particular piece of garment even came close to that.
- I am totally on the side of the 'Factual Feminist'. I read a lot on this issue recently, and watched a few videos on the issue of what I describe as 'PC Feminists' vs 'Non-PC Feminists' and there are clearly anti-liberal views within PC feminist, who want to censor discourse.
- The 4th one is exactly the same topic as the 3rd.
So basically, I think you are lumping together all the pro-political-correctness with the pro-free-speech, who are neither all liberals nor all conservatives. The #gamergate issue and its clash with radical feminists is the obvious issue here: you have both liberals and conservatives people arguing for/against speech censorship.

"'We don't want to impose anything on you. We just demand you praise our arrangements, take part in them even when you don't want..."
Again Crude, what happens in your head is not relevant...

"if a man seduces and knocks your wife up, he hasn't imposed anything on you. He's simply made a free choice, as did your wife, and they did nothing wrong whatsoever. They have updated and reconsidered your relationship, particularly one of its 'traditional' aspects, as is their right, and to suggest they behave otherwise is a clear imposition on your reactionist part. Correct?"
Partially correct, because yes, my wife can get laid with whomever she wants and do whatever she wants without asking me first. Would it wrong though? Of course it would be, because we have an agreement to be faithful to each other. I would simply choose to end the relationship in such case. Of course, you on the other hand, have not replied to my question on whether any woman should be free to make her own choices...

B. Prokop said...

"if there are people that do kick people out because of diverging opinions, it's certainly the Religious Fundamentalists"

Hugo,

Crude and I have many differences of opinion, but I need to point out here that amongst his many flaws, being a "fundamentalist" is not one of them. Crude is a Catholic. So if you're trying to tar him with that brush, your aim is way off.

(I love mixed metaphors!)

Hugo Pelland said...

Sure, point taken, and I've followed this blog for many years, even if I don't comment often, so I wouldn't assign labels unfairly since people don't always defend positions they actually endorse.