I think that by and large extreme positions are almost always wrong or at least ill-advised (in my experience, extreme positions are reliant on ignoring an awful lot of fairly unavoidable facts), but: 1) being in favour of equal rights for gay and straight people including an absence of any persecution isn't really an extreme IMO but a moderate position, in as much as there exists much more extreme things like lesbian separatism 2) it of course varies hugely between issues 3) it's not things being extreme that confers their status as being a bit logically dodgy but the premises they're built upon, and it's usually the case that they're built upon questionable foundations i.e. being extreme doesn't automatically mean illogical, and the correct position can be the extreme one.
I think the real problem here is that the two positions are being treated as basically equivalent, and they're not. At all. So it's really a problem of facts: if your position is based on anything other than LGBT people being in a minority, actively and constantly persecuted and only differentiated from the majority by a behaviour that doesn't affect anyone else whatsoever then your opinion is wrong, being based on false premises. However: I suppose it's possible to differ on ethical axioms, in as much as holding to either "Behaviour which causes no harm is always completely acceptable" or something else provides massively different logical conclusions from the above premises.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: 2012-08-05 01:41 pm (UTC)From:I think the real problem here is that the two positions are being treated as basically equivalent, and they're not. At all. So it's really a problem of facts: if your position is based on anything other than LGBT people being in a minority, actively and constantly persecuted and only differentiated from the majority by a behaviour that doesn't affect anyone else whatsoever then your opinion is wrong, being based on false premises. However: I suppose it's possible to differ on ethical axioms, in as much as holding to either "Behaviour which causes no harm is always completely acceptable" or something else provides massively different logical conclusions from the above premises.