Some users in /ainbow don't like the idea of straight LGBT supporters. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
31 ups - 30 downs = 1 votes
104 comments submitted at 13:13:37 on May 9, 2014 by david-me
Some users in /ainbow don't like the idea of straight LGBT supporters. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
31 ups - 30 downs = 1 votes
104 comments submitted at 13:13:37 on May 9, 2014 by david-me
If homosexuals want to be treated like anyone else, and they want to engage in the same benefits that straight people do (marriage and adoption), then they have to be willing to let straight people into their lives.
Saying you want to be treated like everyone else, and then demanding "safe spaces" is counterproductive, IMO.
Edit: I've been downvoted quite a bit here, so I'll attempt to clarify my position by pasting my response to /u/Biffingston below:
The realm of marriage and having kids has been a place almost exclusively for heterosexuals for a long time, while LGBT groups have had their own subculture for a long time. Now, there are people of all walks of life which are trying to bring the two groups together into that sphere.
But if LGBT people remain calcified against heterosexuals and insistent on maintaining their own spheres of isolation, they'll have a harder time making any progress, and they'll only foster further indignation with success.
One reason that gay marriage is happening is because over the last two decades, so many people have come out that it's hard to ignore friends, family and coworkers who want to experience that which heterosexuals have long enjoyed. But getting the finger in response to support undoes a lot of what they're trying to do.
you are completely wrong in every way, the LGBT doesn't have to let straight people do anything with their movement
Then as a straight person, why would I care what homosexuals want?
Being a decent human being for one.
"Hey, I just want you to know that I support you and if there's anything I can do to help-"
"Fuck you, go away."
"Well, if you don't want my support, then-"
"No, we don't."
"Fine I'll just leave. Sheesh, and here I was going to help you guys if you wanted to get married and have kids."
"If you don't want that for us, then you're a bigot."
"What? I'm supposed to advocate for you even if you tell me you don't want me around, and by implication, don't really like me?"
"...Yes."
It's pretty funny you think this is actually the case
you know, if you read the linked thread you'd see that this scenario isn't the case.
> the LGBT doesn't have to let straight people do anything with their movement
Then frankly, they shouldn't be surprised when straight people don't support their movement.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Plenty of straight people understand the concept that they are not a priority in the movement, those that do not are not welcome. No one is asking straight people to enter the LGBT and make it about themselves and no one wants them too.
My point is, if LGBT wants to spurn straight people and not make them feel welcome, that's fine. It's their choice. They just can't be shocked or surprised when suddenly all of those allies disappear.
Our point is that that's a tiny tiny fringe. I, for one, welcome any ally weather sraight, gay, bi, asexual whatever.
Because the truth is that without straight allies nothing is going to happen.
It's also pretty damn obvious that you don't really get involved with any gay rights advocates beyond /ainbow, which even I don't like.
So yah, my point is you're not talking out of your mouth here.
> Our point is that that's a tiny tiny fringe. I, for one, welcome any ally weather sraight, gay, bi, asexual whatever. > Because the truth is that without straight allies nothing is going to happen.
That's because you're smart enough to realize that any support is good support.
>It's also pretty damn obvious that you don't really get involved with any gay rights advocates beyond /ainbow, which even I don't like.
Am I actively participating in a gay rights organization beyond the HRC, no? Do I interact with gay rights advocates on a regular basis, yes. I'm friends with some. Not because they are gay but because they are cool people.
I'm pretty sure they share my sentiment that anyone who "ally shames" (for lack of a better term) is a fucking idiot.
Depends on the ally. I've known someone who mentioned his "friend" didn't support his rights. And yes, she considered herself progressive, just against gay marriage.
Now, that could be said not to be an ally at all. Just like you could be said to not be an ally because although you support you don't do anything. (Not critical of you here. I think you're one. I'm just making a point.)
Allies don't sabotage, that's the entire point.
Because our rights to things like marriage interfere with yours, how exactly?
If you want to make an argument, best to make one that has some basis in reality, thanks.
How did you get anything about gay marriage out of that?
I think what he's trying to say is that if your social movement is pressing for equality then you can't ostracize a group of people, especially if that group is trying to help you.
Likewise, you can't campaign for equality but then want to separate yourself from the rest of the group once you have it.
> If homosexuals want to be treated like anyone else, and they want to engage in the same benefits that straight people do (marriage and adoption)
How did you not get marriage out of that?
Emphisis mine.
So should we allow someone who beleives that we should nuke DC for gay rights into the club? After all, we need all the allies we can get. (Sarcastic example, but I think it makes a point)
> So should we allow someone who beleives that we should nuke DC for gay rights into the club?
You could argue that you're going to get those type of people calling themselves "allies" no matter what, regardless of the social justice cause.
I'd think it would better to accept them and then reign them in than ostracizing them and having to deal with the potential aftermath.
But what if they did? The point is that some people shouldn't be considered allies because the general midset will do more harm than good.
I mean, take the WBC (Please) The fucking KKK refused to have anything to do with them.. because the associations were pretty disgusting..
The realm of marriage and having kids has been a place almost exclusively for heterosexuals for a long time, while LGBT groups have had their own subculture for a long time. Now, there are people of all walks of life which are trying to bring the two groups together into that sphere.
But if LGBT people remain calcified against heterosexuals and insistent on maintaining their own spheres of isolation, you'll have a harder time making any progress, and you'll only foster further indignation when you succeed.
One reason that gay marriage is happening is because over the last two decades, so many people have come out that it's hard to ignore friends, family and coworkers who want to experience that which heterosexuals have long enjoyed. But getting the finger in response to support undoes a lot of what you're trying to do.
Does that make sense?
So you really, honeslty think that the "I have a gay friend, look how progressive I am even though I don't do anything else?" types should just be allowed?
I can see where you're coming from. And honestly I'm pretty sure I didn't make my point clear. And right now, due to lack of caffiene I'm kinda stumbling for words.. ><
Oh I got it. There's humble support and then there's trendy and condsendign support. If you have a gay freind becausethey're a friend who is gay, cool. If you have a gay freind becasue "Oh man, it makes me feel better about not wanting gay marriage." No. (and yes, i've heard from "gay friends" who don't support gaymarriage.)
Arguabley, granted, that's not even an ally. that's a pretender.
But I beleive THOSE are the kinds of allies that do the GBLT community more harm than good.
> So you really, honeslty think that the "I have a gay friend, look how progressive I am even though I don't do anything else?" types should just be allowed?
Not exactly. What I'm getting at is that having a active subculture is fine, but one which appears diametrically opposed to a group of people that can help you achieve your goals is self-defeating. I know that's a fine line to walk regarding trendy/condescending people, but being called a "breeder" (as one of the contributors to Slate.com refers to heterosexuals) doesn't help anyone.
the term "Breeder" is just as offensive to me as "faggot" Just so you know. And I'm not even one of them.
And you know what? Looks like we're in agreement here. I was just too caffeine deprived to realize it.
The same could be said for almost every social justice group/cause.
They want equality but they want it on their terms and they still want to have their own special club house (safe space). Well, it doesn't work that way.
>Well, it doesn't work that way.
yeah, remember when a bunch of white dudes sat down MLK and told him how to lead the SCLC?
in fact if it wasn't for white people the civil rights movement might not ever have succeeded! /s
"uh, patrons of stonewall? you're going about this the wrong way. pay off the police tonight, apply for a protest permit latter. you don't want to scare off straight people, cause you're going to need their help!"
Except that MLK certainly didn't spun the help and support of white allies. He welcomed it.
There's a difference between "helping" and "running" I'm not saying that LGBT folk should let straight people lead the movement, just that they shouldn't complain about any of the straight support they get, regardless of the motivations behind it.
but they're not complaining about ANY help, they're complaining about a specific type of weak, yet self-congratulatory, type of help.
It's still help, regardless of the motivation. They shouldn't complain about it.
I'm not saying they have to fawn all over those people, just don't actively push them away.
why shouldn't it be left up to the LGBT people to determine what is and isn't help. it's their movement. why do you trust your opinion over what's helpful to their movement over their opinion?
like, I'm not LGBT. so when someone who is LGBT tells me, "thanks, but that's not very helpful", who am I to disagree?
I'm not saying they shouldn't decide what is or isn't helpful. I'm saying that they shouldn't be rude to people who are trying to help, regarless of their motivations behind it.
Any support for a cause like this is good support.
Maybe they are just supporting LGBT issues because it's hip to do so. So what? It's support and if you push them away suddenly it's going to be hip to be anti-LGBT and you've turned your supporters into opponents.
I don't know about you but I'd take support of any kind over an opponent any day of the week.
support for what? it's not exactly an A to Z path to acceptance, where every bit of support incrementally makes things better.
motivations behind support matter. you're right, a lot of people do support LGBT causes because it's hip. but these poor motivations don't necessarily help. many people treat LGBT people in their life as if they're some sort of weird archetype rather than a real human being.("oooh, you're gay? i've always wanted a gay friend!!!!").
like sure, they may be incidentally helpful to getting gay marriage passed. but maybe that's not what's the most important. maybe LGBT people would rather be accepted for genuine, rather than hip, reasons. that's their call. not yours.
> a lot of people do support LGBT causes because it's hip. but these poor motivations don't necessarily help.
Let me get this straight. You're saying support doesn't help?
>many people treat LGBT people in their life as if they're some sort of weird archetype rather than a real human being.
So what? It's their votes that matter. But I also have to ask you, how many LBGT people out there also perpetuate that archetype? A lot.
>getting gay marriage passed. but maybe that's not what's the most important.
Wait, so you're saying that getting gay marriage passed isn't/wasn't important or are you saying that it wasn't important for that particular group of allies to vote for gay marriage? Because either one is a pretty fucked up viewpoint.
You start chasing away allies and suddenly you aren't going to have enough votes to get anything passed because the last time I checked, the LGBT voting block wasn't anywhere near the majority. Hell, maybe that's what you want. Maybe deep down inside you're bigoted against gay people. You seem pretty damn supportive of them shrinking their base of support.
More Comments - Click Here
> just that they shouldn't complain about any of the straight support they get, regardless of the motivations behind it.
If the support is shit people most certainly can complain, your idea of just being thankful straight people are involved is nonsense
> your idea of just being thankful straight people are involved is nonsense
No it's not. Do you really think many LGBT causes would get off the ground if not for the support of straight people? Do you think that marriage equality would be legal in certain places if not for straight support, including the "shit" support you talk about?
Like I said, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
You don't have to fawn all over those people but you don't have to insult them and make them feel unwelcome either.
When they are being bad allies they do not need to be made welcome.
And when they're not they shoudln't be made to feel like lessers.
Straight people will always be less important in the LGBT movement, anyone who doesn't get that is wasting everyone's time
And I never said otherwise.
However, anyone who doesn't realize that majority rules in lawmaking will never get laws passed that are needed to have equal rights.
Except that "bad ally" to the LGBT community seems to be supporting LGBT, just not for the reasons LGBT approve of.
That's fine. Chase away those allies. Just don't complain when they become opponents of the cause because of the way they were treated.
If they are the type of people to become opponents of the LGBT then clearly the LGBT was very right to chase them away.
Maybe or maybe they were so disgusted by the way they were treated that they simply stop supporting the cause, if not actively opposing it.
Any help is good help.
More Comments - Click Here
There are plenty of decent allies out there. We don't need a swarm of people saying they support us, then turn around and say "fag" isn't a slur because South Park.