Does "LGBT" reflect a kind of social pecking order within "the gay community"?

[Usagi]

Yes, of course they have internal conflicts. I recommended that you look into them and focus on those if you must. But you seem to be pulling conflicts out of nowhere. I’ll grant that I’m not that familiar with the community, but what I have heard of their internal disputes has nothing to do with the order of the initials in the abbreviation or with bisexuals wanting to marry two people at once. (Again, that’s an entirely different community, and there probably is friction between them and the folks pushing gay marriage as not such a big change. But you again look ignorant when you conflate polyamorists with bisexuals.)

You still have not explained what you mean by the hypocrisy of the gay community.

Usagi

 

[TMC]

What is the “gay community”?

Gay people are like all other people - some agree with each other, some don’t. Some share political viewpoints, others don’t. Some are religious, some are not. There are various groups that advocate and lobby on gay issues, but they don’t always agree on things - just as Catholics don’t always agree on everything (or anything). The post seems to presuppose that there is some iconic group that represents all gay people, or that gay people are a unified homogenous group. That simply isn’t true. So yes, some of the people represented by LGBT do not like or get along with other people in that group. That is how life works.

 

[andrewstx]

Just to be sure where you are coming from, are you saying that you believe that there is no hypocrisy at all in the “gay” lobby?

I don’t believe there is a massive “gay lobby” at all. Homosexuals are individuals just like everyone else, and there is a lot of diversity in their numbers.

There are gay Republicans and gay Democrats. Gay Christians, gay atheists, and gay wiccans and new agers.

There are gays who are promiscuous and gays with very conservative sex lives. There are also celibate gays.

I think it is a huge mistake to think that all homosexuals are the same.

 

[kozlosap]

I don’t believe there is a massive “gay lobby” at all. Homosexuals are individuals just like everyone else, and there is a lot of diversity in their numbers.

There are gay Republicans and gay Democrats. Gay Christians, gay atheists, and gay wiccans and new agers.

There are gays who are promiscuous and gays with very conservative sex lives. There are also celibate gays.

I think it is a huge mistake to think that all homosexuals are the same.

:thumbsup:this!!

 

[livingwordunity]

I don’t believe there is a massive “gay lobby” at all.

Even Pope Francis has acknowledged the existence of the “gay” lobby. (Source)

 

[TMC]

Even Pope Francis has acknowledged the existence of the “gay” lobby.

What should we call the thing that doesn’t exist? Why call “it” anything?

There are specific groups that lobby or are otherwise active in the gay rights arena. If you want to discuss them (and they are very different one from another) that might be more productive.

 

[livingwordunity]

What should we call the thing that doesn’t exist? Why call “it” anything?

Can you think of anything that humans know about that doesn’t have a name?

 

[TMC]

Even Pope Francis has acknowledged the existence of the “gay” lobby.

He was referring to a group within the Vatican. He would know better than I what groups like that do within the Vatican - but I doubt gays are uniformly homogenous there, either. I assumed you meant groups within American society.

Maybe it would make more sense if you explained just what you do mean.

 

[livingwordunity]

He was referring to a group within the Vatican. He would know better than I what groups like that do within the Vatican - but I doubt gays are uniformly homogenous there, either. I assumed you meant groups within American society.

Maybe it would make more sense if you explained just what you do mean.

Are you actually saying that you believe that the “gay” lobby only exists in the Vatican and no place else?

 

[TMC]

Can you think of anything that humans know about that doesn’t have a name?

Yes. There are many, even among things that exist. But here we have something that does not really exist - at least as I understand you. Again, it may help if you explain what YOU mean by “gay lobby.”

 

[TMC]

Are you actually saying that you believe that the “gay” lobby only exists in the Vatican and no place else?

Now I think you are playing with me by deliberately misunderstanding my posts. I said that the Pope would know if there is such a thing as a “gay lobby” in the Vatican - and he has said there is one. To the extent you are talking about a homogenous “gay lobby” in the US - there is no such thing.

 

[livingwordunity]

Now I think you are playing with me by deliberately misunderstanding my posts. I said that the Pope would know if there is such a thing as a “gay lobby” in the Vatican - and he has said there is one. To the extent you are talking about a homogenous “gay lobby” in the US - there is no such thing.

It doesn’t make sense to admit to there being a “gay” lobby in the place where it is least expected and least visible and then deny its existence where its presence is highly visible and active. It’s not like we are talking about UFOs or unicorns. Lobbies are a standard part of politics, and there are all kinds of them. So, I don’t understand what is so hard to believe about it.

Lobby definition: “an organized group of people who work together to influence government decisions that relate to a particular industry, issue, etc.” (Source)

That definition fits with what is going on in America with things like the organized attempt to get the government to change the civil laws on the definition of marriage and to have homosexual activity taught as the “new normal” in the schools.

 

[TMC]

It doesn’t make sense to admit to there being a “gay” lobby in the place where it is least expected and least visible and then deny its existence where its presence is highly visible and active. It’s not like we are talking about UFOs or unicorns. Lobbies are a standard part of politics, and there are all kinds of them. So, I don’t understand what is so hard to believe about it.

There are lobbying organizations that work on gay issues. For example, Human Rights Campaign. There are activist groups with a gay rights focus, for example, the Log Cabin Republicans. What there is not, is a single monolithic group that coordinates and runs lobbying for gay people. So, to me, it makes sense to talk about what various lobbyists or organizations do or don’t do, but it doesn’t make sense to talk about what the “gay lobby” does, because I don’t believe that there is a single monolithic gay lobby.

As to the rest, I am not “admitting” that there is a gay lobby in the Vatican - just acknowledging that the Pope has said there is one and that he would know better than I. Also, the Vatican is hardly the last place I would expect to find gay people, or gays lobbying for something.

 

[livingwordunity]

There are lobbying organizations that work on gay issues. For example, Human Rights Campaign. There are activist groups with a gay rights focus, for example, the Log Cabin Republicans. What there is not, is a single monolithic group that coordinates and runs lobbying for gay people. So, to me, it makes sense to talk about what various lobbyists or organizations do or don’t do, but it doesn’t make sense to talk about what the “gay lobby” does, because I don’t believe that there is a single monolithic gay lobby.

As to the rest, I am not “admitting” that there is a gay lobby in the Vatican - just acknowledging that the Pope has said there is one and that he would know better than I. Also, the Vatican is hardly the last place I would expect to find gay people, or gays lobbying for something.

If there is no “gay” lobby then there never was a tobacco or oil lobby either.

 

[TMC]

If there is no “gay” lobby then there never was a tobacco or oil lobby either.

I agree with that - in the sense that you are using “gay lobby” here.

But all this back and forth over the semantics is ignoring the issues. Is your question appears to be whether there are disagreements and varying viewpoints between various LGBT activists and organizations? If so, the answer is very much yes. Just as there are disagreements between activists and organizations in any other area.

If your question is seriously whether the order of the letters LGBT indicates some sort of pecking order, the answer is no (as others have said).

 

[livingwordunity]

“GLAAD” is the official name for the “gay” lobby in America.

 

[TMC]

The “gay” lobby in America has an official name. They call themselves GLAAD.

Well… GLAAD is an activist group that supports gay rights in America, true. They are not lobbyists in the traditional sense of lobbying Congress or the government - they mostly “lobby” the media. Again, they are only one group. HRC is a more traditional lobbying group - they lobby Congress for gay rights, but are a completely different group than GLAAD with different goals. There are many other groups, some of which focus full time on gay rights, others for which gay rights is only part of their mission.

 

[livingwordunity]

Well… GLAAD is an activist group that supports gay rights in America, true. They are not lobbyists in the traditional sense of lobbying Congress or the government - they mostly “lobby” the media. Again, they are only one group. HRC is a more traditional lobbying group - they lobby Congress for gay rights, but are a completely different group than GLAAD with different goals. There are many other groups, some of which focus full time on gay rights, others for which gay rights is only part of their mission.

“GLAAD” fits with the dictionary definition of a lobby.

Lobby definition: “an organized group of people who work together to influence government decisions that relate to a particular industry, issue, etc.” (Source)

There are multiple ways that a lobby can influence government decisions. I don’t see how you can continue to deny this.

 

[SMGS127]

“GLAAD” is the official name for the “gay” lobby in America.

What? Then what are HRC, LL, and PFLAG?

To be honest, different movements in the GLBT community have varying degrees of morality. GLAAD focuses on presenting actual gay people to the public, so stereotypes and misinformation are no longer accepted as fact. That mission, taken by itself, is moral. The HRC pushes for legal gay marriage (an immoral mission), but they also sponsor Time to Thrive, the new annual convention focused on reducing violence against gay people (a moral mission). LL does issue some lawsuits about gay “marriage,” (an immoral mission) but most of their work is issuing anti-discriminatory lawsuits, the vast majority of which are moral in nature. PFLAG is probably (ironically) the least moral of the 4, as its mission is entirely to show parents and friends of those who come out that there’s nothing wrong with same-sex relationships.

Also, may I point out that both GLAAD and PFLAG explicitly support bisexuals and transgender people too:

advocate.com/politics/2013/03/24/glaad-affirms-commitment-trans-and-bi-people-alters-name

On Sunday, March 24, GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz appeared on MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry to affirm the organization has formally dropped the ‘Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation’ from their name and will now be known simply as GLAAD, the LGBT media advocacy organization.

The name change brings with it a commitment from the organization to incorporate trans and bi people in their efforts to support the LGBT community in its entirety.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFLAG

PFLAG was the first national LGBT organization to officially adopt a transgender-inclusion policy for its work, vowing not only to include transgender people in all of its work, but also never to support any policies or laws that are not trans-inclusive.[12] In 2002, PFLAG’s Transgender Network, also known as TNET, became PFLAG’s first official “Special Affiliate,” recognized with the same privileges and responsibilities as regular chapters.

Now, again, some work these organizations do is immoral. But you can hardly call them hypocritical, and there certainly is no pecking order meant by GLBT/LGBT/the “alphabet soup.”

 

[livingwordunity]

Now, again, some work these organizations do is immoral. But you can hardly call them hypocritical, and there certainly is no pecking order meant by GLBT/LGBT/the “alphabet soup.”

In light of your pointing out “GLAAD” to me, I’ll admit defeat with my theory about tension between lesbians and “gay” men in the lobby. But, I still think that the “BT” part of it has less status.