[Noos]

Why? It works spectacularly well. It's funny to watch all these people who use it suddenly get up and bashful about it now and then; the democrats won house, senate, and presidency very much focusing on identity politics.

I think if anything, the scary thing is that it works better than caring about the poor at all. It wasn't democratic ideas about poverty that made them such a force...just accuse people of homophobia and you've already put them on the defensive if not won. "Alt-right" is such a wonderful tool-just hint someone is it, and a person's mind does all the rest even though they may have no idea what it even means. Just say it long enough and loud enough in the right tone of disapproval and you have magic.

I'm not sure how much of this is /s.

When I was against gay marriage, I sat down and tried to think a lot about how marriage related to procreation or was a special institution. How religion related to it, and whether or not it needed protection. I did feel eventually civil unions were the strongest compromise, because there were legal aspects to recognizing couples that were important but the special nature of heterosexual marriage and its relation to tradition and religion mattered to. You can disagree about gay marriage but realize that there are definitely things gay couples should have in a legal sense too; hospital visitation rights as one. A lot really was uncertainty about metaphysical and philosophical ideas I think.

But all you had to do to shut all that down was to accuse me of homophobia and bigotry. It's insanely effective because a person has to now defend that whatever he is proposing isn't because of deep-seated irrational phobia or anger. It really worked.

Now i pretty much just shrug and say "What are you going to do, you're conquered." Pay the Dane the Danegeld when he asks.

Gay marriage as an actual act is not really a success. In my state last year all of 700 people got married in same sex couples out of a population of 4 million, and even with the low straight marriage rate here thats 700 out of 20,000 a year I believe, not even .05 percent. Ever since mid 2015 we have never seen even 1000 people a year use it. That's the huge irony of all those identity politics...they were a club to beat people with more than a vital need it seemed.

It's easier and more effective to use identity politics. They aren't going away. I mean lord, "live and let live"-be honest, you think you're going to allow us to do that with climate change an issue? When you want us to learn to love the veggie burger and electric bike everywhere instead of using cars?

I mean it doesn't work well on the receiving end but hey, like the simpsons treehouse of horror episode, sometimes the dolphins just want it more. Luckily it seems people get embarassed of conquering after a bit so it fades.

[lotsofpulp]

>Gay marriage as an actual act is not really a success.

I have friends who are able to enjoy the benefits of a legal contract and existing case law and precedents that was previously restricted to man/woman couples. Seems like a success to me.

>live and let live"-be honest, you think you're going to allow us to do that with climate change an issue? When you want us to learn to love the veggie burger and electric bike everywhere instead of using cars?

You can live and let live with gay marriage, it doesn't affect you in any way. Neither does a veggie burger, and no one has ever wanted you to love a veggie burger. I do want it as an option for my kid in school, however.

Climate change, and cars are not live and let live issues, since they have massive externalities that affect everyone.

[Noos]

I don't think you understand how tiny the numbers are for the war people fought.

Like let's assume in my state we take the fairly average assumption of LGBT population at 5%. Now let's also take a marriage rate of 5 per 1000, which is pretty low given that this is a historic opportunity. Even granting this, the actual numbers indicate a rate close to 3 per 1000. This is close to half of the current rates, which are widely seen as historic lows:

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2020...

This is in a new england state. So it's not something you accuse due to being in the Bible belt. In actual numbers, the impact of gay marriage is fairly tiny. Your friends are outliers. It's actually tiny enough to hurt a lot of compelling reasons for it; state-sanctioned marriage as a tool to help combat gay male promiscuity for one, or any form of economic benefit to it. Ironically SSM wasn't something to worry about because the people who want or need it are small enough a population not to impact anything in practice; it was more of an ideological issue it seems.

As for climate change, yeah my point is if we do identity politics now, over things which are let or let live, what is going to happen when there are things that we cannot do so? I think it will ramp up more even.

[lotsofpulp]

>It's actually tiny enough to hurt a lot of compelling reasons for it; state-sanctioned marriage as a tool to help combat gay male promiscuity for one, or any form of economic benefit to it.

I'm not sure what this statement means. Are you claiming combating gay male promiscuity is beneficial for society?

>Ironically SSM wasn't something to worry about because the people who want or need it are small enough a population not to impact anything in practice; it was more of an ideological issue it seems.

I disagree. Freedom, for populations small or big, for actions that have no effect on anyone else is very important to worry about it. And I don't see what can be wrong with that ideological issue, unless you're anti freedom.

>As for climate change, yeah my point is if we do identity politics now, over things which are let or let live, what is going to happen when there are things that we cannot do so? I think it will ramp up more even.

With any limited resource (such as the global environment and natural resources like clean water and air), the ones with power will end up with most of it, and the people alive have more power than the people that have yet to be born.

The only identity politics that matter in the climate change situation is those who will consume today or those who will sacrifice today. But I predict this will be an unsolvable problem due to lack of buy in from the global population, for variety of reasons.

[dutchCourage]

> the democrats won house, senate, and presidency very much focusing on identity politics.

I'd say the republicans did that. And even after the 4 years of gaslighting and bigotry, they almost did it again. I wouldn't say it's the democrats who make topics like wearing a mask or the destruction of the environment political.

Now you have democrats who play that game too, but since they have the facts "in their favor" it's to their detriment (I'm putting quotes here because covid and global warming being real isn't to anyone's favor, but it's facts). Mud fights benefit those without good arguments.

That said, I agree with your post, antagonizing people doesn't help changing minds.

[Noos]

See, its easier to accuse people of bigotry than look at their actual problems. Trump didn't win because the modern left sucked hard at actually helping the poor, they did because they were gaslighted by bigots.

[dutchCourage]

Haha, I realized the irony of my comment writing it. I definitely would word it differently if I was trying to convince someone.

> See, its easier to accuse people of bigotry than look at their actual problems.

That's true. But I strongly believe that bigotry is the problem. Blaming the left for the rise of populism and conspiracies is like blaming the firefighters for the fire. I'm putting the blame on the arsonists.

We should be debating how to fix issues instead of "Is the issue real?". All the politics who participated in spreading misinformation and dividing the western world should be voted out of their positions.

It's a systemic failure that brought us here. Our system allowed selfish leaders (from all sides tbh) to get in power.

But fixing the systemic issues touches on personal liberties (who decides what can and cannot be said?), so it cannot be done lightly. Additionally, politics wants to be re-elected, so not only they won't do anything against misinformation, they sometimes encourage it.

I blame the leaders more than the followers, but the followers have a personal responsibility in it as well.

[XorNot]

700 out of 20000 is 3.5%.

The gay population is estimated at roughly 10% but we're talking couples so 3.5% would imply a surprisingly high rate of marriages amongst gay people within the year over year married population.

[Noos]

The marriage rate is at 6 per 1000 in the states, and its a historic low; it used to be high as 15 per 1000 maybe 20-30 years ago? I posted a link upthread.

Actually what's ironic is that my state's capitol is heralded as "one of the gayest cities in america" for having a percentage of 4.6%. San fransico seems to be 6.2%. This link is dated 6 years ago, though:

https://www.ctpost.com/living/article/Which-are-the-gayest-c...

[XorNot]

And so what? If the % of gay people is lower then that makes the proportion of gay couples getting married by your own offered statistics even higher.

I have no idea what offering them marriage rate in isolation is contributing otherwise.

To loop this back around to the topic at hand though, it is bizzare to use the rate of utilisation of one's rights as an argument as to whether or not people should have them.

[xpe]

> When I was against gay marriage, I sat down and tried to think a lot about... [many details] ... You can disagree about gay marriage but realize that there are definitely things gay couples should have in a legal sense too; hospital visitation rights as one. A lot really was uncertainty about metaphysical and philosophical ideas I think.

Good points. I am glad you thought about it, even if you came to different conclusions than I would have.

> But all you had to do to shut all that down was to accuse me of homophobia and bigotry.

To state the obvious: I never accused you of that.

I'm not stating the obvious to be confrontational; I'm saying it because I've heard this argument frequently from people I know that disagree with my politically.

For example, I've met thoughtful people that feel attacked because they want to think through issues rather than jump on a bandwagon. I am very glad they are being thoughtful and see nuance in the issues.

So here is what I hope to learn: I'd like to know why you feel this way. Do you personally think that someone like me, perhaps from a different political philosophy, is judging you (as opposed to the underlying ideas)?

(I have some guesses, but I would rather not speculate.)

[Noos]

I'm saying it because the left learned very quickly that you can bypass the hard work of arguing positions by instead arguing the holder of them is irrational and or evil in a sense. It's much more effective to call someone else evil than to put forwards your ideas of good.

By calling me irrational, I do not need to be compromised with or taken seriously; compromise and dialogue is based on the fact that people are both making good faith efforts to engage. Part of what is chilling about the whole social media thing recently is that it's arguing that it causes people to be in an irrational state and not to be taken seriously. Go home trump voters; you are drunk on social media.

So yeah, there is a lot of judging going on, because that kind of judging is more effective than compromise. You yourself sound like you are open minded more because people will need time to come to the undeniable truth than anything.

[vladTheInhaler]

A big part of the confusion is that you seem to treat this like an abstract matter of philosophical debate, because frankly, you don't really have a personal stake in it. That's not meant as an insult, just a statement of fact. As a straight, white male, neither do I. But it's not reasonable to expect someone to engage in dispassionate discourse about their own safety and their right to be treated like a human being. It's easy to forget because of how rapid and sweeping the change in public opinion was in the US, but in many other countries (and quite a few places in this one) LGBTQ rights are still a matter of life and death.

And this is the problem with so many debates - the people who are largely comfortable with the status quo are confused because people in marginalized groups are screaming at them, when they didn't really do anything to those people. In fact they may, in some abstract way, be supportive of their struggle. But the people are screaming because a third party has a gun (literally or figuratively) to their heads. So in order for there to be a real conversation, first we need to get that guy to put the gun down. Nothing else can happen until then.

[concordDance]

Not sure "live and let live" applies to things with direct externalities like burning fossil fuels, for that you need an emissions tax.

[xpe]

> Now i pretty much just shrug and say "What are you going to do, you're conquered."

Why do you use the 'conquered' language?

Very few things are static under a long enough time horizon. In politics and public opinion, things can change quite quickly. So, if you want to prioritize an issue, go for it.

[Noos]

I use it because I feel people are fundamentally dishonest sometimes about the implications of their ideas.

Some political ideas are not "we must both give up something to exist together." Some are "My idea is morally right, and by necessity it must conquer yours." I use SSM more because it's a pure example of this; what exactly did marriage advocates "give up" in the bargain? It was the opponents who more or less had to capitulate near totally.

This is what culture war is. It is the use of politics to establish ideas and defeat or subjugate those who disagree with it. This does not mean it is inherently immoral; one of the frustrating things about this is the realization that no, the conquerors are not the rapacious Mongols we think they are. But i think people often don't get how much a political idea can be subjugation more than compromise.

As for changing, nah. Can you imagine a world where it has changed so much divorce becomes illegal again? What would it take for people to cast it off? If we were possible of this kind of change as a group I think we'd have far less to worry about climate change for example.

[xpe]

> what exactly did marriage advocates "give up" in the bargain?

This is poorly framed. This is not about "bargaining".

This is a case of people demanding and advocating for their rights. There is no principled reason to ask while doing so they should "bargain away" those rights.

Sure, opponents of same-sex marriage may disagree.

There are some schools of thought that try to separate, shame, or exclude others based on some criteria, whether it be sexual orientation, educational background, or socioeconomic status.

I see a pattern around intolerance. People that have exclusionary beliefs don't have a good track record -- here's what I mean -- these belief systems do not survive contact with reality, unless the person with that belief system digs in their feet and refuses to engage with real people. For example, it may be "easy" for someone to be homophobic if that is how they were raised, but this belief system is unlikely to survive if the person has a gay son and they are open to talking with their son and learning about the issue.

[xpe]

> Some political ideas are not "we must both give up something to exist together." Some are "My idea is morally right, and by necessity it must conquer yours."

I think I see what you mean, as a general concept, although I think using "conquer" is a poor word choice. The word "conquer" tends to imply force.

There are many tensions between ideas in law, life, and philosophy that are resolved by economics, thinking, compromise, persuasion, voting, organizing, and group behavior rather than force.

[xpe]

Are you arguing that granting a particular kind of same-sex union involves "subjugating" people who opposed it?

I (and most people I think) use the word subjugation to mean "bring under domination or control, especially by conquest: the invaders had soon subjugated most of the native population." Traditional examples of subjugation include occupations and forced religion.

[xpe]

> But I think people often don't get how much a political idea can be subjugation more than compromise.

Based on your comment so far, I will say that I don't get what you are trying to say.

Do you mean this: those who define the terms of a debate shape how it is perceived, what options are considered, and (to some degree) how it is evaluated?

[xpe]

> I use SSM more because it's a pure example of this; what exactly did marriage advocates "give up" in the bargain? It was the opponents who more or less had to capitulate near totally.

I am fascinated by your language use of "capitulate" here. You are framing this discussion very much with the language of "subjugation".

Here is how I frame one category of public policy involving allocation of scarce resources. In the case of legislation that adjusts spending from general revenue, each taxpayer shares the responsibility. Individuals who attempt to withhold that portion of the tax will face penalties. This is one way a government can wield power. The power is often implied, but if necessary, it can be backed up with various enforcement mechanisms. These mechanisms may be coercive, but they are subject to the rule of law.

Now, with regards to granting privileges to same-sex couples, I do not see this as an issue involving scarce resources. A person who opposes same-sex marriage is not directly harmed by someone else's partnership receiving the right for hospital visitation, for example.

In fact, I think the opponent of SSM, in practice, benefits in ways they don't even recognize. Happier, more fulfilled people tend to lead to a more vibrant culture, stronger economy, and overall better quality of life -- for everyone. One of the classic ironic Hollywood storylines is about a homophobic man who grows up to be a father of a gay son. Over time, he realizes he was wrong.

At the same time, I can understand how this opponent of SSM may feel worse off. Unfortunately, this person wants their private morality to be imposed on everyone.

For background on how I am using public morality and private morality, see the writings of Robert Kaine. He argues against moral relativism while supporting the importance of value systems that are compatible with democratic ideals. In short, not all private moralities are equal in this sense: not all are compatible with a pluralistic public morality.

To be clear, Kaine's reasoning does not demand a total ordering of private moralities. Indeed, it steers clear of that issue.

So, in conclusion, while I can sympathize with people who don't get their way (which I frame as "having their private beliefs codified into law"), I don't think they have been treated unjustly. Not all private beliefs are compatible with pluralistic democratic values. Sometimes society has to choose.

[xpe]

> Pay the Dane the Danegeld when he asks.

For context, from Wikipedia:

> "Dane-geld" is a poem by British writer Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936). It relates to the unwisdom of paying "Danegeld", or what is nowadays called blackmail and protection money. The most famous lines are "once you have paid him the Danegeld/ You never get rid of the Dane."

I don't follow why you reference blackmail or protection money. Can you explain?

[Noos]

I guess I misused it some. I felt it more was "pay the conqueror his due when he asks, and get on with the business of living." The Dane is already here, and we aren't getting rid of him.

[eulenteufel]

Not allowing homosexual people the right to marry is very much not "live and let live". There is a whole lot of married heterosexual people who do not and will not have kids, for all kinds of reason. If the US would like to encourage/support people getting kids they could legislate support for that.

What remains is not allowing homosexual couples the same treatment as heterosexual couples, because heterosexual couples are "special" for religious and traditionalist reasons. This is very strong identity politics, but from conservative side and very much contrary to the spirit of "live and let live". It strikes me how many conservatives do not realize that they very much support identity politics and then go raging against it the next moment.

Treating people equally should be the default and is the result of not caring about identity in the first place. There are some good arguments that can be made for identity politics after that, but the case against equal treatment should have to be a really strong one. Traditions and religious feelings do not suffice for that in my opinions.

Even when the absolute numbers of homosexual marriages is very small that doesn't justify not caring about unequal treatment. Imagine if we would tax all identical twins 5% more than everybody else. This nonsensical unequal treatment would clearly be unacceptable injustice while the percentage of people that are affected is still very small.

On top of that there are social explanations why homosexual people would be less likely to marry. Marriage has long been a religious and traditionalist institution and has been used to discriminate against them. It can be hard to identify with such an institution and I know queer people who would not like get married because of that. If marriage had been available to everybody since as long as they can remember considering marriage would perhaps come more natural.

[Noos]

the "childless" het couple was a good argument that caused no end of trouble. To be honest it was a darker sign I think, that heterosexual couples themselves had internalized cultural norms and the institution itself was no longer special so much to be worth protecting.

I think there were conservatives who realized this, and this was the reason why "the state should get out of marriage entirely" was pushed as a solution. That too was shot down harshly. At that point I personally gave up I think. It's like abortion...the issue is not "should a woman have a right to it," the issue is that now we live in a society where premarital sex is the norm and abortion is just restoring equity to the new norm.

The real numbers..look, it was literally hilarious to me that the same people who were arguing "marriage was only a piece of paper" in their own lives suddenly turned around and became strict advocates of it in the lives of a small minority of people. If religious people had said "okay, we accept gay people, but they need to follow the same teachings we do-be the husband of one husband, no premarital sex, and no sex outside marriage" everyone here would have railed against marriage as a tool of straight fascism or something.

I'm not meaning the low numbers means its should be revoked though. If anything it's the reverse. We did all that trouble, all that hate and strife...can you all please use it at least? When you fight desperately for the right for something, and in reality barely anyone seems to use it, what was the fighting done for?

[Splendor]

> it was literally hilarious to me that the same people who were arguing "marriage was only a piece of paper" in their own lives suddenly turned around and became strict advocates of it in the lives of a small minority of people

Empathy. What you're describing your shocked reaction to is empathy in others. This says a lot about you.