First thing, I don't appreciate your thinly-veiled insults to the depths of my interest and intelligence. It's taken me two polite requests to actually get you on topic -- it's not a matter of me not wanting to discuss it because I've told you twice now that I want to engage you in conversation but you cannot seem to state your opinion in a clear and comprehensible manner. I'm trying really hard to understand you because I want to understand you. If you're veering off into tangential topics and you cannot relate them back to the topic at hand (and again, I did ask you to do this in case I was missing the point, to which you replied with more equally vague and seemingly unrelated subjects), then that is, quite frankly, not my problem.
Well, if you restrict the discussion in a way that refuses a wider perspective, that's that. You've tried to demand that I not speak about any other sexual orientation as if there were no connection, overlap or association. That simply is not the case. If you say you are "concerned" about people suggesting there are practical advantages to a given orientation... Or, if all you honestly see are people seriously intending that they are "superior" with no particular reason or obvious context... In either case, I do not think there is much to discuss unless you look around the field of sexualities for some background. Otherwise, you have already written up a few pansexuals, or perhaps pansexuals in general, as targets of your particular ire and declared there is nothing to understand but everyone is welcome to go on about only that
. If you choose to feel insulted by anyone saying so, I don't know how to help you.
Not every thread is yours to discuss "the world in its complexity" as you see fit. I'm sorry if that seems unfair to you, but as I invited you to do so earlier, you are more than welcome to start your own thread to go off on any subject you so choose and I would love to participate on them there.
I think your cutting it down "strictly" to only a very small, underrepresented set of people would only serve as an excuse to ignore or misrepresent the actual issues that group deals with generally. Particularly when we know many members of the pansexual "community" (such as it is) are also actively and deeply involved in issues that span kink, poly, gay, bi, queer, etc. I don't know of many Pansexual Institutions, any more than most people know of Genderqueer Ones. But, you can
learn a lot about the probems and values of either group by looking for some of those people (and for historically shared problems) among the others I've mentioned.
10% of the population does not hold the monopoly on those who lean liberal politically.
I think you've conjured up for yourself the idea that I thought they do. However, among those who have non-normative family structures, gay, pan, and the like are relatively common. And it is often alternative family structures -- gay marriage, polyamory, etc. -- that are at the center of some political and legal debates about what is moral sexuality, whose children are supposedly better cared for and so on, and thereby what is a "good life." As more visible parties to cases in this debate -- "look, for them
it's not just experimenting or sleeping around but oh no, it's an orientation
, it's pan, bi, queer, etc." they are targeted as leading society down "the road to hell" by certain prominent right-wing commentators (Stanley Kurtz comes to mind).
So given that, it's not so surprising a few pansexuals etc. may enjoy saying flippantly now and then: Hey, we're actually better than that other tradition keep smacking us about being the only standard (along with whole Republican Party legislative platforms following them and a whole lot of airtime)... Precisely what I
happen to think of the more liberal or more conservative arguments there isn't apparently relevant to your question as phrased earlier. All sorts of people have said things like this about their groups at times of controversy.
I'm simply saying, if you aim to understand where it comes from: I suspect some of that "we're superior" thing you're hearing may have something to do with larger claims about what's a good life. They are not much about what sex of partner(s) the individual chooses. As I said before, maybe it's more an offhand claim about some kind of lifestyle values. Are they "right" that they're better in some way? There's no way to really evaluate, unless we went through some list of all the social goals people have tied to relationships and agreed "as the judges ourselves" to make certain ones more important than others. I'm not suggesting we bother, but it would go like this: Is it economic power under one kind of order or another? Relationship security? Children who have more or less sources of advice and gender flexibility? Well, the list is really long. Agreement? Measurability -- particularly while some orientations have more legal standing and less stigma than others?? Rather unlikely.
I imagine alternative lifestyles are a little stronger by some measures and a little weaker in others. But I know
there are some differences, often small and conditional ones but sometimes still real enough. I also know there is a mix of confidence and resentment for discrimination among people who have been going on with their alternative relationships anyway. So it's not surprising that you hear some people shoot off about how wonderful their relationships are. It's no more surprising or offensive than for conservatives to shoot off about how wonderful "conservative family values" must be or sometimes, how "natural" limiting marriage to male-female should be.
Yes, it is more likely that heterosexuals will be Republican because at present, not only are there a greater number of heterosexuals to draw in for those numbers
I'm not sure if I said they would be Republican,
or simply more prone to approve "family values" platforms. Either way, this direction of argument strikes me as a little bizarre and forced. If we can do this without writing regression equations please... It's entirely feasible to see whether each orientation is proportionally
represented by whatever measure. I don't see why you would assume I meant only absolute numbers, unless you're scrambling to find a straw man. It seems to me that
kind of measurement would yes, obviously lead to absurd results in very many
cases. But then, why would I really want to go there.
Consider that the Republican agenda repels gays with a few of its policies. As soon as that changes, it is likely that they become more gay-friendly on that issue alone and your point becomes rather baseless because you will see to some extent a shift of gays who are more willing to take on the right-wing agenda, maybe not their present "family values", but especially on matters such as fiscal policy.
Aside from questioning how likely such a change is in the near future.... My point would still stand. Some members of sexual minorities would continue to assert that their way is better than the platforms such as "family values" -- or any other party platform that really rubs against practicalities of their lifestyle. It's similar to: I can vote for Obama on the whole ticket, but still feel betrayed about rendition and torture.
But if what you are doing is suggesting that being gay/pansexual/bisexual gives you the moral high road, then just come out and say it.
Myeh, moral relative to what? There's that endless list to investigate and argue over which to favor in the first place. I generally expect people not to agree on all that under present conditions. So lots
of people are going to insist they're ahead in the game -- while talking right past each other. Just for example... I think at least some members of sexual minorities do a relatively good job of encouraging their kids to be open to various genders and sexual orientations. I think many kids that are in poly families have access to a particularly wide range of advice. (How many other people still live in extended families, and how many of those contain varied class backgrounds and different-but-equally celebrated sexual orientations?) But I don't think no
other families give these benefits and I know not all pan or poly people will...
Still, it makes sense
to me that people who are commonly marginalized or neglected with direct reference to orientation
as the code for it, will assert in turn that they really are acting moral, perhaps even superior. That may be annoying to some people. In principle, it is not offensive to me in the same way as getting behind a political program that asserts that minorities should
be off the list of people who have protections and privileges.
But who knows. All of this may not be what your contacts have in mind. They just may have been saying, "Gee you really should try this pie. It's awful good. It's not monkey brains, we swear."