The IBW has convened again for another exciting discussion, this time shifting our focus to Pride and gender. I’m paywalling for a bit, but will release to the public eventually. If you want to listen now, though, subscribe! But wait! What is the IBW?
On the point about the Federal Government taking a position on LGBTQ+. It’s not that they are just taking a position to be progressive or open. Their position leads to laws where government funding is used to compel any institution (education, health care, sports, etc) that receives funding, to provide services (I.e. gender affirming “health care”, access to locker rooms, sports teams based on gender, gender based social services, gender theory in schools, etc.).
They always make it sound so good and compassionate but you have to look behind the curtain to find out what they are really after.
Going back to gay marriage, the strategy they used was to “redefine marriage” to include same sex couples. Why didn’t they just enact a law for civil unions and provide specific rights accordingly? That would have passed in a heartbeat. But by redefining marriage, same sex couples were automatically included in all marriage laws. Maybe that makes sense, but in traditional marriage, laws were created specifically to support women because they often put careers on hold to have and raise children. Tax law provides discounts for married couples because of the family aspect, typically more people to support. Should those same laws apply to same sex couples? Same sex couples do have children, so maybe, but to what extent?
My point is that there are always legal reasons behind their decisions.
On whether liberal Muslims are genuine Muslims or not, I look at Christianity for a comparison:
There are many, many denominations in Christianity, and any denomination with two or more members has internal disputes on interpretation. Lots of people who consider themselves Christians would look at other self-described Christians and say "They aren't REAL Christians." Rather than trying to arbitrate the dispute by appealing to whatever one considers a proper interpretation of the Bible (isn't that the core issue?), I would note two things:
1) It is clear that these various types of Christians have religious beliefs. They are religious. You can argue that some of their beliefs are wrong or all of their beliefs are wrong, but they clearly have religious beliefs. They are practicing a religion, however good or bad you might think their religion is.
2) Whether you think their religion is or isn't a proper interpretation of Christ's teachings, their roots are undeniably Christian. Maybe they're good Christians, maybe they're bad Christians, but it's clear that their religion derives from Christianity.
So then I look at liberal Muslims and it's clear that they have beliefs, it's clear that their beliefs constitute a religion, and it's clear that their religion derives from Islam. Maybe it's an awkward fit with many/most other Muslims' beliefs, but whatever their religion is, it's more Islam than anything else.
I think Razib made an interesting point in the end about kids. How strong is the evidence that kids makes a person more conservative? Maybe it's hard to tolerate new things when you have a kid. Perhaps parents have a vested interest in what society should look like for their kid and they become less socially liberal. I think that's why Sarah and Razib have stronger opinions than the other two.
Great podcast. I am 67 and gay and lived through it all...raucous 70s and the plague ridden 80s, etc.
Gay rights triumphed for several reasons such as respect for people's being platformed and not cancelled; the engagement by gays/lesbian in hard arguments that questioned the very essence of your life, and so on.
But there is, I think, a less mentioned reason for the success of gay rights : That heterosexuals wanted to live homosexually. What that means is that society at large, which is straight, used gays as a kind of hobby horse, an overton window, to justify and consolidate the sexual revolution for themselves. Meaning the divorces, the contraceptions, the serial monogamy, the abortions, and especially, childlessness and the eschewing of family.
Almost 10 years ago I started getting the whiffs of what gender theory was up to. I had known about people like Judith Butler since the 90s, but this was something new. And I mentioned to friends that the biggest threat to gays and lesbians would now come from the left, not from the right. And on that point, I remain convinced. Note that what muddies the water is this acronym of LGBTQ++++++....which is kind of like the sexual version of Latinx.
What trans is becoming is a way to effectuate endless inversions of hierarchies, and introduce vast pseudo-science, in the name of erasing hierarchies and creating....equity.
I would write more, but I think this is enough for now.
On the point about the Federal Government taking a position on LGBTQ+. It’s not that they are just taking a position to be progressive or open. Their position leads to laws where government funding is used to compel any institution (education, health care, sports, etc) that receives funding, to provide services (I.e. gender affirming “health care”, access to locker rooms, sports teams based on gender, gender based social services, gender theory in schools, etc.).
They always make it sound so good and compassionate but you have to look behind the curtain to find out what they are really after.
Going back to gay marriage, the strategy they used was to “redefine marriage” to include same sex couples. Why didn’t they just enact a law for civil unions and provide specific rights accordingly? That would have passed in a heartbeat. But by redefining marriage, same sex couples were automatically included in all marriage laws. Maybe that makes sense, but in traditional marriage, laws were created specifically to support women because they often put careers on hold to have and raise children. Tax law provides discounts for married couples because of the family aspect, typically more people to support. Should those same laws apply to same sex couples? Same sex couples do have children, so maybe, but to what extent?
My point is that there are always legal reasons behind their decisions.
On whether liberal Muslims are genuine Muslims or not, I look at Christianity for a comparison:
There are many, many denominations in Christianity, and any denomination with two or more members has internal disputes on interpretation. Lots of people who consider themselves Christians would look at other self-described Christians and say "They aren't REAL Christians." Rather than trying to arbitrate the dispute by appealing to whatever one considers a proper interpretation of the Bible (isn't that the core issue?), I would note two things:
1) It is clear that these various types of Christians have religious beliefs. They are religious. You can argue that some of their beliefs are wrong or all of their beliefs are wrong, but they clearly have religious beliefs. They are practicing a religion, however good or bad you might think their religion is.
2) Whether you think their religion is or isn't a proper interpretation of Christ's teachings, their roots are undeniably Christian. Maybe they're good Christians, maybe they're bad Christians, but it's clear that their religion derives from Christianity.
So then I look at liberal Muslims and it's clear that they have beliefs, it's clear that their beliefs constitute a religion, and it's clear that their religion derives from Islam. Maybe it's an awkward fit with many/most other Muslims' beliefs, but whatever their religion is, it's more Islam than anything else.
Great conversation,
I think Razib made an interesting point in the end about kids. How strong is the evidence that kids makes a person more conservative? Maybe it's hard to tolerate new things when you have a kid. Perhaps parents have a vested interest in what society should look like for their kid and they become less socially liberal. I think that's why Sarah and Razib have stronger opinions than the other two.
Great podcast. I am 67 and gay and lived through it all...raucous 70s and the plague ridden 80s, etc.
Gay rights triumphed for several reasons such as respect for people's being platformed and not cancelled; the engagement by gays/lesbian in hard arguments that questioned the very essence of your life, and so on.
But there is, I think, a less mentioned reason for the success of gay rights : That heterosexuals wanted to live homosexually. What that means is that society at large, which is straight, used gays as a kind of hobby horse, an overton window, to justify and consolidate the sexual revolution for themselves. Meaning the divorces, the contraceptions, the serial monogamy, the abortions, and especially, childlessness and the eschewing of family.
Almost 10 years ago I started getting the whiffs of what gender theory was up to. I had known about people like Judith Butler since the 90s, but this was something new. And I mentioned to friends that the biggest threat to gays and lesbians would now come from the left, not from the right. And on that point, I remain convinced. Note that what muddies the water is this acronym of LGBTQ++++++....which is kind of like the sexual version of Latinx.
What trans is becoming is a way to effectuate endless inversions of hierarchies, and introduce vast pseudo-science, in the name of erasing hierarchies and creating....equity.
I would write more, but I think this is enough for now.