[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.