netcrusher88 wrote:Counterproductive to civil rights is counterproductive in general.
Only if civil rights are productive toward your personal goals.
netcrusher88 wrote:And I have no problem whatsoever assigning an obligation to advocate for gay (etc) rights to an organization which claims to represent the LGBT community and calling them out for it when they don't.
They don't make that claim. Here's a link toward their stated goals
; they wish to represent members of the LGBT community who favor fiscal conservatism and state-level governance over federal level governance. These are real people with real desires and goals; describing them as 'counter-productive' because they've chosen to pursue those goals--rather than the goals you might set out for them ("Why aren't you supporting gay marriage? That's way more important than whatever it is you
want")--is a denial of those desires and goals. Fr
This might be different if their goal was the prevention of gay marriage. But I don't see anything describing them as opponents of gay marriage; rather, gay marriage simply isn't as important to them as fiscal conservatism and state rights. To claim that their goal is wrong--that they're being 'counterproductive' to their own ends--is akin to demanding they give up their very identity.
firechicago wrote:I don't think "counter-productive in general" is terribly meaningful as a concept. By definition, counter-productive activity moves you further from your goal. If you don't have a goal, how can something be counter-productive?
That said, I do think "counter-productive" is the wrong term to use for GOProud, because it confuses "gay political action group" with "gay rights group." GOProud is not a group that has ever claimed to be working towards gay rights. Instead, it is a group of gays coming together to push a conservative, broadly libertarian agenda, which only incidentally includes some gay rights items. GOProud has a coherent set of beliefs and policies, it's just not the beliefs and policies those of us in favor of gay rights might hope for.
I think this might cut closer to the heart of what I'm trying to say--what I'm bothered by is the notion that we might denounce an organization because it's pursuing the 'wrong' agenda--that an agenda that represents the interests of a group of LGBT people must
support a federal mandate for homosexual marriage, that they must
represent the interests of the LGBT community at large, that they cannot
represent other identities that the group may feel more passionately about--that all members of the LGBT community must be uniform and equipped with the same identity, the same desire, the same experience.