DOMA and Prop 8. Both History.

[Jester]

See, I got engaged in February.

Congratulations!

That bit of sunshine aside, your situation sounds frustrating as all hell. Can you hop jurisdictions, and get married somewhere a little more tolerant? That seems to be the obvious solution, and the obvious next fight at the Supreme Court.

-Jester

[Hammerskjold]

While I can't get married right now I can perform marriages. I've not done it yet, because every couple I know is either already married or can't get married. I feel like a Great Lakes Avenger with these pointless marriage powers. In the mean time, I've already forced an old D1 buddy to get ordained too so he can officiate at my wedding when the time comes. It's weird, though.

-Lemming

Hey congrats! Though I think the fear here is how many people will you kidnap at gunpoint and force to attend your gay wedding. That is, how many people who don't know you at all, don't like the gays, and don't want to have anything to do with you and your 'kind'. Hostile strangers basically.

How many will that add to the cost of dinner, not to mention centrepieces and giveaways...

Seriously though grats man! Have you thought of a brief vacation to Toronto Canada? I heard we do gay weddings. And although you have to check the $ exchange rate, it still might be favourable.

[LemmingofGlory]

Hey congrats! Though I think the fear here is how many people will you kidnap at gunpoint and force to attend your gay wedding. That is, how many people who don't know you at all, don't like the gays, and don't want to have anything to do with you and your 'kind'. Hostile strangers basically.

I think the "bears in kilts" theme I'm going for will be enough to draw attendees without the need for kidnapping. I'm the kind of guy who wears kilts as everyday wear (to work, to the store, whatever), so I'm giving friends an excuse to invest in a smashing formal outfit that they can wear to other formal events and look like a total boss.

Seriously though grats man! Have you thought of a brief vacation to Toronto Canada? I heard we do gay weddings. And although you have to check the $ exchange rate, it still might be favourable.

Well, I could easily go out of state and have a justice-of-the-peace quickie elsewhere and then just have a formal party back home. I don't know if there's much point of that, though, since the marriage won't be recognized where I live and I rather expect my career will move me elsewhere eventually.

And before anyone here cries "but it was only to indoctrinate them with communist ideology!!", it is no worse than the schools here in America, which are a complete capitalist indoctrination session from grade school, as early as first grade, onward all the way up through the college level.

Actually, no one is going to say that because I just posted a wedding announcement and nobody cares about your conspiracy theories right now.

-Lemming

[shoju]

I had this whole long crazy thing posted out where I systematically pointed out the flaws in your logic Eppie, but then But then while I was previewing it, I realized that Hammers beat me to the punch. I just have a few things I want to touch base with, and then I'm done with the detour.

and yes I am prejudiced against musicians

But I don't respect the players. Why would I? They have the best job in the world, playing a game and making loads of money

Don't forget that the level of self-centeredness among artists is much higher than that in the normal society.

Comments like these, insult, debase, and attempt to belittle the personal fibre of people like me, my friends, and my children. Athletes, Artists, anyone who has a passion that in the end could possibly lead to a life in the lap of luxury.

You seem to have this idea that we only have these passions because of the end result. I've never been featured in a noteworthy magazine. My art has never been showcased in a major gallery. My written works have never even seen the light of day to be published.

My son isn't a top notch D1 College Prospect for baseball. he isn't going to get drafted straight out of high school. He plays for the love of the game. He actually ships out to boot camp shortly after graduation. Pro ball is not his future.

Sure, we talk about "how awesome" or "how cool" it would be if we did make it to the pinnacle of our passions. That's dreaming. Led on by the old adage "If you do what you love, you'll never work a day in your life".

But I still love art. I still love to write music, and stories, and create visual art. My son still plays as hard as he can every time he touches a ball field. Because the passion is what drives you. Without it, you end up a shell of your former self, going through the motions without the passion.

I can respect someone like Bieber, because I recognize the talent that it takes to reach the pinnacle of popular music. I don't respect his behavior. I don't respect his attitude. I don't respect that he's a spokesman for PETA.

But I respect his talent. I respect the work and dedication that he put in to get where he is.

Looking down our noses at people, and being venemous towards them because our society created something out of their art, and raised them on a pedestal is ridiculous. Just like being predjucided against musicians, or making broad assumptions about the level of self centeredness found in a group of people, based on wildly asinine, and non-provable opinions.

Especially, considering that some musicians, are the most selfless, amazing people you will ever meet. Dave Matthews, Bono (U2), Art Alexakis (Everclear), Bruno Mars, Macklemore, Chester Pennington (Linkin Park)... These names come from all genres of music, and all of them go out of their way, to give back. To give voice to a cause, to put in the extra time, and the extra miles to speak up.

Even Atheletes. Chris Kluwe, Brendon Ayenbadejo, Joe Thomas, Omar Vizquel, Kevin Durant, Albert Pujols, Teddy Bruschi, and the lists just go on and on.

Don't be envious. But don't hate them because their passion put them in a position where they are wealthy and famous. That isn't their fault. It's the society within which they live.

[FireIceTalon]

Actually, no one is going to say that because I just posted a wedding announcement and nobody cares about your conspiracy theories right now.

-Lemming

I'm starting to think don't think you know what the term 'conspiracy theory' means....and that your just throwing around terms for the sake of sounding cool.

Pro-capitalist ideology being shoved down our throats in school is not a conspiracy theory - it is quite self-evidently true. Especially in most history classes, which are almost always taught from a very pro-capitalist/anti-communist and/or right wing point of view. Anyone who says otherwise is divorced from reality, period.

But grats on the wedding.

[shoju]

Well, but for your point to be true FiT, you would indeed be saying that Former USSR, Cuba, North Korea, and China are in fact Communist. As that was what the "Anti Communist" portion of my (albeit aging) public school education was focused on.

The US, being the Knight in Shining armor to the evils of the USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam, and North Korean Regimes, who were all "communist", by their own self given "naming".

But as we've heard countless times, they are the ugly duck that never grew into the swan of communism. They kept calling themselves a duck, but never were...

So, I guess I'm confused. Are you now saying that these countries are/were communist?

[FireIceTalon]

Actually, no, I wouldn't. YOU would be saying that, not me.

Because communism, by your definition means, well, just about anything. If we go by your definition, every monarch during the middle ages, Hitler, Pinochet, and Mussolini were all communists. You, like most anti-communists, want to put your own spin on what things mean, so it conveniently fits your own agenda and views. Me? I don't define things to fit an agenda, I define them on what actually constitutes the particular parameters that make something what it is. In the case of modern communism, as defined by its original founders Marx and Engels, a classless and stateless society. All the countries you named had classes, and of course as a result, they all had states. Therefore, by definition, it would be impossible for them to be communist. Just the fact that they are even countries at all eliminates that possibility, as "countries" are socially constructed as a product of class based societies. The term "communist country" is an oxymoron.

I could really care less what they called themselves, or how many red flags they decorated their buildings with, or what they named their cities. Hitler called and thought of himself as a savior of humanity (perhaps he used different wording) and human rights activist - doesn't mean he was, does it? Just like with communism, feudalism, slave society, or any other type of social organization, western capitalism also has a particular set of social relationships that define its class character, and make it what it is: private ownership of the means of production, free-trade, and liberalism. Most social science courses in American schools are taught in such a way that promotes and upholds the values based on these conditions. Not that I blame it in a way, cause it sort of has to do that by default - the system literally fights for its life everyday. And because it must do this, that makes it impossible for it to be a 'conspiracy theory'. Capitalism and its operations are not a conspiracy, they are observable material realities. Now, things like the government trying to poison us with chemtrails, the existence of the Lochness Monster, or that we have aliens from outerspace among us are conspiracy theories - there is no valid, conclusive or observable evidence to support any of them.

But the TL;DR version of it is, you can't just go around defining things how you want them to be or think they are, otherwise all knowledge becomes meaningless.

[Bolty]

Well, I could easily go out of state and have a justice-of-the-peace quickie elsewhere and then just have a formal party back home. I don't know if there's much point of that, though, since the marriage won't be recognized where I live and I rather expect my career will move me elsewhere eventually.

I meant to ask you about this. Seeing as how your state currently views you as sub-human, do you envision yourself moving to another state in the near future that more appropriately recognizes your equality to other human beings? Assuming you give your state some time to come around, of course. The next five years will be quite interesting on that front, as I'm sure we can all predict fairly accurately which states will be updating their laws and which won't.

My first reaction upon hearing the Supreme Court rulings was that there was bound to be a slow "brain drain" out of the backwards states as the affluent (meaning able to pick up and move as desired) homosexual community members migrate to places where their marriages would be considered valid.

[kandrathe]

As for Marx being a drunk and moocher of Engels - perhaps this is true. "Moocher" is a rather disparaging term, though. Engels and Marx were friends, and Marx suffered from many health problems later in life, and he also lost one of his children. Engels willingly helped him financially as a friend, and I look at it that way more than I do Marx being a "moocher". As for him being a drunk, well, it wouldn't surprise me if he was. Between the hardships he suffered, and observing the horrors of 19th century capitalism and having a better understanding of it than anyone else, would probably be enough to make any person not want to look at the world through sober eyes. I know even in TODAY'S capitalist society, many suffer from alcoholism and depression, and not just because of a personal tragedy or hardship they experienced, but often because of financial problems or the alienation which the capitalist system imposes upon them - whether they understand the system or not. At any rate, I don't think Marx being a drunk and helped out by Engels is even close to putting a dent in the validity of their theoretical framework.

But, again, you've taken the example outside the context of what we were discussing.

It was a pointed barb, yes, however true and unsubstantiated. But it was in reference to your fallacy of the excluded middle.

For example, "Eagles are the most noble bird, and if you don't agree you are an idiot."

---

Well, I could easily go out of state and have a justice-of-the-peace quickie elsewhere and then just have a formal party back home. I don't know if there's much point of that, though, since the marriage won't be recognized where I live and I rather expect my career will move me elsewhere eventually.

I meant to ask you about this. Seeing as how your state currently views you as sub-human, do you envision yourself moving to another state in the near future that more appropriately recognizes your equality to other human beings? Assuming you give your state some time to come around, of course. The next five years will be quite interesting on that front, as I'm sure we can all predict fairly accurately which states will be updating their laws and which won't.

My first reaction upon hearing the Supreme Court rulings was that there was bound to be a slow "brain drain" out of the backwards states as the affluent (meaning able to pick up and move as desired) homosexual community members migrate to places where their marriages would be considered valid.

We are getting enlightened in Minnesota.

[LemmingofGlory]

Pro-capitalist ideology being shoved down our throats in school is not a conspiracy theory - it is quite self-evidently true. Especially in most history classes, which are almost always taught from a very pro-capitalist/anti-communist and/or right wing point of view. Anyone who says otherwise is divorced from reality, period.

I could just call you Chicken Little if you prefer that to conspiracy theorist. It really makes little difference to me as both are alarmist. But the fact is, just because there's a nugget of truth to the things you say doesn't mean I believe the extreme to which you take them.

The thing is, it's not the 1950s anymore. "Rah rah capitalism, boo communism" propaganda has toned down a lot, and the average American isn't really that invested in any particular ideology (such as capitalism) because it requires understanding it. The fact that you think schools are teaching something is especially telling. See, nowdays schools are heavily invested in both not-learning and not-teaching, because nobody wants to do things like

(1) Learn how to spell, write sentences, and comprehend written language
(2) Perform arithmetic with fractions
(3) Understand evolution without using teleological explanations
(4) Understand anything about the U.S. government, how one ought not legislate according to the ideals of their god because other people don't care what your god wants, and the fact that the U.S. was not founded by Jesus 2013 years ago
(5) Come to an understanding of course material which will cause them to excel on standardized tests instead of learning the specific kinds of questions that will appear on the standardized test

You are giving way, way, way too much credit to the educational system and its goals. I do not dispute that capitalism and communism are discussed in some courses and that communism probably doesn't get the fair shake that you'd like, but claiming (for instance) that "capitalist indoctrination" begins in elementary school sounds as absurd to me as right-wing pundit claims that schools are teaching atheism.

I meant to ask you about this. Seeing as how your state currently views you as sub-human, do you envision yourself moving to another state in the near future that more appropriately recognizes your equality to other human beings? Assuming you give your state some time to come around, of course. The next five years will be quite interesting on that front, as I'm sure we can all predict fairly accurately which states will be updating their laws and which won't.

My first reaction upon hearing the Supreme Court rulings was that there was bound to be a slow "brain drain" out of the backwards states as the affluent (meaning able to pick up and move as desired) homosexual community members migrate to places where their marriages would be considered valid.

The idea that gay people might migrate for rights is something you'd expect to happen, but you don't see anywhere near as much of it as you might think. Most local queers I know are interested in moving somewhere metropolitan; the Marietta/Atlanta area is the most popular destination even though Georgia's no bastion of equality. One of the most surprising things to me is the number of people just don't want to move from here. They're invested in family and church and community, and they would lose that by moving away.

Personally, I'm gonna move as soon as a job takes me elsewhere. I have no family hooks keeping me tethered here what with my dad living(?) somewhere in Europe and my mom living(?) out of her car because of untreated mental illness. I'm an import here, and I've never had a connection to the culture. When people ask me where I'm from I usually say, "The internet." It's where I grew up, it's where my friends are, and I know all the cool places to go.

-Lem

[LavCat]

Getting back to the thread topic, is anyone else here gay and waiting for the marriage laws in your area to catch up with the times?

Gay, see my forum title, but in order to get married it helps to have someone who wants to be married to you. The marriage laws here are the least of my marriage problems at the moment.


Edit: forgive me for being so churlish and selfcentered -- Congratulations!

[eppie]

Don't be envious. But don't hate them because their passion put them in a position where they are wealthy and famous. That isn't their fault. It's the society within which they live.

Shoju, you keep using the same flaw in your arguments against me.

I say I don't respect people just because they are a good athlete are musician.
I don't say I surely disrespect an athlete or musician.

The fact that I am biased against musicians and professional athlete just means it takes me longer to start respecting them (say, longer than a politician or whatever) but it doesn't mean I will never respect them.

I say, just being good in sports or music for me is not enough to respect someone.

(and this is really the last thing I say about this)

[Hammerskjold]

Well, I could easily go out of state and have a justice-of-the-peace quickie elsewhere and then just have a formal party back home. I don't know if there's much point of that, though, since the marriage won't be recognized where I live and I rather expect my career will move me elsewhere eventually.

Ah my mistake then. I somehow got it mixed up that you already moved to a state where it was recognized, or soon to be. Like, yeah we haven't updated it yet, but it will be soon, but if you absolutely need to you can get it out of state and in a couple of months it will be updated.

And I was angling to get some of your precious precious American dollar for my own city.

[shoju]

Don't be envious. But don't hate them because their passion put them in a position where they are wealthy and famous. That isn't their fault. It's the society within which they live.

Shoju, you keep using the same flaw in your arguments against me.

I say I don't respect people just because they are a good athlete are musician.
I don't say I surely disrespect an athlete or musician.

The fact that I am biased against musicians and professional athlete just means it takes me longer to start respecting them (say, longer than a politician or whatever) but it doesn't mean I will never respect them.

I say, just being good in sports or music for me is not enough to respect someone.

(and this is really the last thing I say about this)

It's not a flaw in my logic. It's me taking what you said at face value.

You said you'd never heard his music.
You then said that you were biased against musicians.
You then went on to say that you didn't have respect for people just because they were good at something.
And then you went so far as to say that we (artists) are a self centered bunch of people, at least more so than the rest of the world.

And I'm telling you, that is a load of bullshit. You have automatically decided that this group of people have to go out of their way to make an impression on you because you don't like something about them.

That's.... just racism, applied to a different set of standards. Instead of being biased against someone because of their race, or because of their nationality, you have decided to bias yourself against a group of people because they have artistic talent.

Seriously? That's about the most batshit insane line of reasoning I've heard.

[LemmingofGlory]

Gay, see my forum title, but in order to get married it helps to have someone who wants to be married to you. The marriage laws here are the least of my marriage problems at the moment.

Edit: forgive me for being so churlish and selfcentered -- Congratulations!

It's cool. It's nice seeing LGBT presence on the forum. I remember back in the day things were vaguely LGBT-tolerant and much less LGBT-positive. I mean, there were people like Doc that would sit around rambling like the insane uncle at the family reunion about being a guerilla civil rights activist living "off the grid" and in next breath opine on the terrible consequences gay sex as if he was trying to get people to quit gay cold turkey. I remember gay rights threads ending complacently with "Well, we're just not ready for that yet" instead of "Even if we don't expect change tomorrow, it's never too early to make people aware." And then there were the blatantly discriminatory arguments that I didn't even want to deal with. It's nice to see times change though. Nowdays the most common criticism you see in threads about gay marriage is about the evils of capitalism.

-Lem

[LemmingofGlory]

Seriously? That's about the most batshit insane line of reasoning I've heard.

I don't think eppie's reasoning is quite as connected as you hope it to be. It seems likely to me that there are either internal inconsistencies, a lack of perspective on creativity, or very different uses of the word "respect". I can make a case for the latter.

The word "respect" is loaded (though not quite as much as "love") because it can connote different intensities of reverence. It can be used to acknowledge or to indicate appreciation or to indicate approbation. My impression is you're arguing that musicians (like teh beebz) deserve to be acknowledged when they have created something that shows craftsmanship. It's not necessary to appreciate their work or to shower it with praise.

I get the impression eppie is using the word "respect" with more intensity. The idea that someone has to earn your respect by doing something that you appreciate is the sense of the word I'm getting from "someone who makes millions by singing crappy songs does not earn my respect." Notice the use of crappy, which indicates that the stronger sense of the word. That's not just saying "It must show craftsmanship" but "It must be something that doesn't suck."

That's the argument I feel like I've been watching.

-Lem

[shoju]

I guess I've never used respect as such a "finite" term to only express one thing.

I can respect a person for being a great human being.
I can respect a person for their talent
I can respect a decision. Even if I may not agree with it.

I've tried to be as clear as possible. I don't respect the Biebs as a person. I think he's a little brat, who has surrounded himself with yes "kids", who go along with his idiocy. But, I do respect his talent. Just like I respect the talent and dedication of athletes who have driven themselves to be the very best at what they do. I may not respect Lebron James' decision to have "the decision" tv program, but I respect him as an athlete.

There is a difference.

[LemmingofGlory]

I guess I've never used respect as such a "finite" term to only express one thing.

I was talking about how use of the word seems to fall along a intensity continuum (in that sense I wouldn't describe it as "finite"). Here you're talking about using the word with different objects (achievement vs character vs decision), which is not something I felt was really disputed by yourself or eppie. I think both of you could respect Hitler's choice of being a teetotaling vegetarian without extending that to any other aspect of him.

-Lem

[Jester]

It's cool. It's nice seeing LGBT presence on the forum. I remember back in the day things were vaguely LGBT-tolerant and much less LGBT-positive. I mean, there were people like Doc that would sit around rambling like the insane uncle at the family reunion about being a guerilla civil rights activist living "off the grid" and in next breath opine on the terrible consequences gay sex as if he was trying to get people to quit gay cold turkey. I remember gay rights threads ending complacently with "Well, we're just not ready for that yet" instead of "Even if we don't expect change tomorrow, it's never too early to make people aware." And then there were the blatantly discriminatory arguments that I didn't even want to deal with. It's nice to see times change though.

Your post inspired a little bit of a walk down memory lane. Pete, from 2003:

If a group wished to set up a polyandry, a polygyny, or even a group marriage then as long as all participants do so of their own free will, I see no reason why it should be banned.

I suspect I could win most threads even now, by just copy/pasting from an archive of Pete's posts.

Nowdays the most common criticism you see in threads about ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING is about the evils of capitalism.

Fixed.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I get the impression eppie is using the word "respect" with more intensity. The idea that someone has to earn your respect by doing something that you appreciate is the sense of the word I'm getting from "someone who makes millions by singing crappy songs does not earn my respect." Notice the use of crappy, which indicates that the stronger sense of the word. That's not just saying "It must show craftsmanship" but "It must be something that doesn't suck."

That's the argument I feel like I've been watching.

I agree. When I said, "I can respect the work of Justin Bieber." I was reflecting on the difficulties and challenges he faces. There are many artists in many mediums I like and don't like, but I always reflect on the difficulty of the craft. He seems to genuinely be trying to be good at what he does, rather than taking it all for granted. And, he seems to be doing something constructive with his social position.

But I'm not denying that he may be acting like a adolescent sometimes, because he is pretty much still an adolescent. As he matures, we'd expect his behavior to be that of a more mature adult.

And, in facing temptation, give any one of us millions of dollars, fame, and an adoring devoted following of tweens and see what we'd do with it. Given the temptations he's facing, he's doing better than I would of had I been him. In fact, I was worse than him without all those trappings of wealth and fame.

We can debate the merits and difficulties of various art forms, such as photography, versus sculpting in stone, but I would challenge each of us to consider just how very difficult it is to even go sing well the national anthem at a local sports event in front of hundreds of critical onlookers. Now, imagine doing it as a young person who probably still cares what their peers think and tweet.

Then again, all this extraneous life style analysis is still irrelevant to his work as an artist.

I can't sing like he does, and I can't play any instrument very well. I can respect people who do, because I've dabbled in learning instruments, and I sing all the time -- and I know I'm an amateur. I also know that my innate talents lay elsewhere.

Let's tie it back to gay marriage.

This experiment by the Washington post demonstrates how peoples "prejudices" constrain their behavior. In this case, a world famous virtuoso violinist "panhandling" on the street -- getting ignored by people who in other circumstances would wait in line, and pay hundreds of dollars to sit in a packed concert hall with bad seats.

Sometimes we get comfortable with things the way they are. That is, we are jaded by the music industry who snatches up random performers based on marketing potential rather than on talent or merit. In some ways, JB was made bigger by Scooter Braun, but JB had established himself as a pop prodigy through Youtube first, and he learned to play instruments before he was made into a superstar. I think what eppie has prejudicially assumed is that ALL pop superstars are tainted by the institution (music industry) that so frequently creates them.

What reasons do most people have against legalizing same sex unions? It's mostly tradition -- and to a lesser extent religious dogma. Any objections I have about restrictions on marriage are all about the State, and not about the seemingly obvious civil equality of same sex unions. If marriage is a spiritual compact, then the State should have nothing to do with it and it would utterly depend on your churches stance. If marriage is a social contract for convenience, then why would we limit it -- and, then also, why does the State have any say at all in your free legal associations? The State (the powerful institution) should have really no say in my who or how many people we are (legally) sexually attracted to, nor how we might wish to cohabit, or relate to that one, or myriads of people.

And, to tie it back to JB, any objections I have about him relate to how his career is propelled and marketed by the powerful institution (music industry). And, also, I'm just not an aficionado of pop idols.

Really then, what we might want to do is set aside our prejudices, and see things for what they truly are, in respecting the aspirations and talents of people we know (or hear, or who's work we experience in our lives), and not be jaded by those powerful forces who try to tell us what to do, or what to buy, or what to like, and where.