[foldr]

>I think PG's problem is with the prigs, not the lgbt movement itself. Can these be separated?

You're essentially asking if the LGBT movement can be separated from the exact kind of activism that's enabled the advances in LGBT rights that we've seen since the 1960s. In a word, no, they can't be separated. The 'priggishness' of one or two decades ago is the moral truism of the present. Here, for example, is a spoof flyer in the British satirical magazine Private Eye published in 1969:

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_...

It's funny. But what's even funnier is many of the items in the list of obviously ridiculous demands (demands that surely signal that Political Correctness Has Gone Mad, etc. etc.) have turned out to be completely reasonable and, in time, uncontroversial.

[chriscappuccio]

Of course it can be separated. There is no inherent reason the two must be molded together. Zero.

[foldr]

As always with history, you can imagine how things might have happened differently. For example, you can imagine gay marriage having been legalized without people ever having put social pressure on others not to use homophobic language. The two things are certainly not inherently linked. But then, very few things are inherently linked in history and politics. It's not much of an argument against a certain form of activism to point out that its results could in principle have been obtained by other means.

[mbarria]

History is a pretty good argument that they can't be separated.