I am engaged to be married. I am very excited about it. I would be pissed if I couldn't marry my fiance. However, I've always seen marriage as a superficial ceremony, the signifier and not the signified. It's not centrally important; our committed relationship is.
Yet, you are getting married. If marriage is 'superficial' why are you excited about it and why would you be pissed if you couldn't? If you're excited about it why isn't it centrally important? Clearly marriage is important enough for you that you are actually getting married, rather than saying "We don't need a piece of paper to say we love each other."
You have the luxury of debating about whether other people should get rights you already have - rights that are so easily available to you that you can be ambivalent, take-it-or-leave-it about them. Turning around and telling people who do not have the rights you do that their priorities are wrong, and they should not be making such a fuss to have those rights, is disingenuous.
ETA: the argument that same-sex marriage is 'not the biggest problem' for LGBTs is also a false dilemma. But you knew that.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Yet, you are getting married. If marriage is 'superficial' why are you excited about it and why would you be pissed if you couldn't? If you're excited about it why isn't it centrally important? Clearly marriage is important enough for you that you are actually getting married, rather than saying "We don't need a piece of paper to say we love each other."
You have the luxury of debating about whether other people should get rights you already have - rights that are so easily available to you that you can be ambivalent, take-it-or-leave-it about them. Turning around and telling people who do not have the rights you do that their priorities are wrong, and they should not be making such a fuss to have those rights, is disingenuous.
I don't think it's "disingenuous." I think at most I am being insensitive. By the way, I don't think anyone on this forum despises the justification for denying gays that right (religion) more than I do.
By "superficial," I meant that marriage is an outward signifier of the status of a relationship; it is a ceremony that is often meaningless to begin with, has a very sketchy history (economic contracts where men bought young girls for a brideprice from their fathers), and is not something I consider at all essential to my relationship with my loved one or our future together. Also, I am skeptical of and usually hostile to ritual and ceremony to begin with.
Yes, I have that "luxury," but I don't think what I say is inaccurate. Maybe I'm being premature, but I don't think undergoing the ceremony of marriage is somehow going to strengthen or deepen my relationship or the love I feel towards my fiance. So, it's "superficial" in that respect.
Now, I guess there are probably lots of people who place way more importance on the ceremony of marriage than I do. But really, how important, in the grand scheme of things, is it? It doesn't strike me as nearly as important as the right to actually get lodging or housing (denied to black people), or equal opportunity in employment or schooling. It actually strikes me as less important than the right to legally smoke weed, a right which I do not currently have.
ETA: the argument that same-sex marriage is 'not the biggest problem' for LGBTs is also a false dilemma. But you knew that.
Yes. I think another way to look at it, perhaps, is that legalizing same-sex marriage would be a signifier for a certain level of cultural acceptance for gays (along with the more important legal equality, which could be achieved with civil unions or whatever). But the main problem isn't that gays lack a signifier for cultural acceptance, it's that they're not culturally accepted.
Qingu on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Yet, you are getting married. If marriage is 'superficial' why are you excited about it and why would you be pissed if you couldn't? If you're excited about it why isn't it centrally important? Clearly marriage is important enough for you that you are actually getting married, rather than saying "We don't need a piece of paper to say we love each other."
You have the luxury of debating about whether other people should get rights you already have - rights that are so easily available to you that you can be ambivalent, take-it-or-leave-it about them. Turning around and telling people who do not have the rights you do that their priorities are wrong, and they should not be making such a fuss to have those rights, is disingenuous.
I don't think it's "disingenuous." I think at most I am being insensitive. By the way, I don't think anyone on this forum despises the justification for denying gays that right (religion) more than I do.
Also, the idea that being gay is exactly analogous to being black is pretty ridiculous, as well. One doesn't have to suggest that hiding your orientation is a great solution in order to recognize that overt black discrimination is a helluva lot harder to avoid.
Unless you're flamboyantly gay, I suppose.
Well. That only works so far.
Gays aren't instantly recognizable but any meaningful and prolonged interaction with people (such as coworkers) would make it rather difficult to hide, I imagine. (my gaydar is terrible though)
Edit: I think a more important disconnect between gay rights and black civil rights is the much larger degree to which blacks were segregated and oppressed. Gays don't attend separate schools, separate restaurant areas, they aren't refused lodging or housing or employment. Blacks used to, and still do to a large extent, get treated completely differently by the justice system, which before and during the 60's had a tendency to cover up things like lynchings. Gays still suffer very real and harmful discrimination, obviously, but I don't think it's to the same scale that blacks did during the civil rights movement.
I agree 100%.
I recognize that, in most places, being gay sucks to varying extents. I know they have hardships and deal with discrimination on a regular basis. I just balk whenever someone tries to equate their situation with pre-60s civil rights for blacks. Because seriously, not the same thing.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
By "superficial," I meant that marriage is an outward signifier of the status of a relationship; it is a ceremony that is often meaningless to begin with, has a very sketchy history (economic contracts where men bought young girls for a brideprice from their fathers), and is not something I consider at all essential to my relationship with my loved one or our future together. Also, I am skeptical of and usually hostile to ritual and ceremony to begin with.
Okay. Then by the power of the Internet, I forbid you to get married and am denying you common-law spouse benefits. Also, if your non-spouse gets sick, you can't visit them in the hospital unless you happen to make friends with a tolerant nurse who doesn't want to cause trouble for you, and if your non-spouse dies, I hope the will is all set up right, because there's a good chance some small-town judge is going to try to screw you over and give it to your non-spouse's estranged family instead of you. Since you're not married.
But really, it's just a formality.
takyris on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited June 2010
There aren't too many instances of people offering a total equation of the Civil Rights Movement and the gay rights movement. Certainly not on these boards. But I will say that the differences between the situations of racial and sexual minorities cut in both directions. Gay people, for instance, are usually born into straight families, and do not necessarily have access to a community. As is the case with racial minorities, low income exacerbates the problems with being gay (for example, it prevents migration to more accepting parts of the country). When you see gay people in major cities living largely carefree lives, you are seeing the lucky ones.
By "superficial," I meant that marriage is an outward signifier of the status of a relationship; it is a ceremony that is often meaningless to begin with, has a very sketchy history (economic contracts where men bought young girls for a brideprice from their fathers), and is not something I consider at all essential to my relationship with my loved one or our future together. Also, I am skeptical of and usually hostile to ritual and ceremony to begin with.
Okay. Then by the power of the Internet, I forbid you to get married and am denying you common-law spouse benefits. Also, if your non-spouse gets sick, you can't visit them in the hospital unless you happen to make friends with a tolerant nurse who doesn't want to cause trouble for you, and if your non-spouse dies, I hope the will is all set up right, because there's a good chance some small-town judge is going to try to screw you over and give it to your non-spouse's estranged family instead of you. Since you're not married.
But really, it's just a formality.
I should have been more clear: I consider the legal rights to be pretty significantly important. But that's also just an argument for separate-but-equal civil unions.
That said, it would suck. It would not suck on the level of what blacks went through before and during civil rights. It would also, arguably, not suck on the level of being imprisoned for smoking marijuana.
Now, I guess there are probably lots of people who place way more importance on the ceremony of marriage than I do. But really, how important, in the grand scheme of things, is it?
Apparently, just important enough for you to be excited about getting married and to be pissed at the idea that you might be denied to go through with your planned marriage, yet not important enough for same-sex couples to want to be allowed to get married to their loved ones.
Arguing that other things may be more important is a false dilemma. You're pretending that LGBT activists are not pushing for anything except same-sex marriage rights, and that if you can think of something else that in your opinion they "should" be doing instead, then they should STFU about the marriage already. The idea that LGBT groups are already pushing for employment rights, the protection of throwaway kids expelled by their homophobic families, is not something you appear to be aware of, nor are you willing to acknowledge that it is possible to work for more than one type of right at the same time.
ETA: and again, re same-sex unions, I can't help but notice you're going for the Big M instead of a civil union; perhaps it's because you're aware that "separate but equal" never is, or that civil unions do not in fact have all (or even most) of the responsibilities and benefits of marriage.
I find it difficult to believe that your comment about smoking pot is anything more than trolling. One would have to be a silly goose indeed to say "Yeah, I can get married and I'm gonna and you're not allowed to, but that's not nearly as important as whether I can legally smoke a joint!" That's a level of self-centered I-got-mine-Jackery that I don't think you seriously mean.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
There aren't too many instances of people offering a total equation of the Civil Rights Movement and the gay rights movement. Certainly not on these boards. But I will say that the differences between the situations of racial and sexual minorities cut in both directions. Gay people, for instance, are usually born into straight families, and do not necessarily have access to a community. As is the case with racial minorities, low income exacerbates the problems with being gay (for example, it prevents migration to more accepting parts of the country). When you see gay people in major cities living largely carefree lives, you are seeing the lucky ones.
Exactly. People are using it as an example because it is analogous in many ways, but not all ways.
I don't think it's really necessary to have sort of argument about what type of discrimination is worse. They're both fucking terrible and we should be working to eliminate it. It's helpful to analogize to the civil rights movement because it was a movement to grant people freedom from discrimination that was readily apparent around the country. The gay rights movement wants the same thing. Comparing them isn't trying to devalue what blacks went through or prop up what gays go through.
By "superficial," I meant that marriage is an outward signifier of the status of a relationship; it is a ceremony that is often meaningless to begin with, has a very sketchy history (economic contracts where men bought young girls for a brideprice from their fathers), and is not something I consider at all essential to my relationship with my loved one or our future together. Also, I am skeptical of and usually hostile to ritual and ceremony to begin with.
Okay. Then by the power of the Internet, I forbid you to get married and am denying you common-law spouse benefits. Also, if your non-spouse gets sick, you can't visit them in the hospital unless you happen to make friends with a tolerant nurse who doesn't want to cause trouble for you, and if your non-spouse dies, I hope the will is all set up right, because there's a good chance some small-town judge is going to try to screw you over and give it to your non-spouse's estranged family instead of you. Since you're not married.
But really, it's just a formality.
Tak, if you have those powers, why don't you use them for good and not ill?
It's helpful to analogize to the civil rights movement because it was a movement to grant people freedom from discrimination that was readily apparent around the country. The gay rights movement wants the same thing. Comparing them isn't trying to devalue what blacks went through or prop up what gays go through.
If we're making analogies, who is the face of the gay rights movement? Who is the compelling orator giving speeches and enjoying national celebrity? Blacks had Douglas and MLK in their corner; gays have ... Barney Frank?
I recognize that, in most places, being gay sucks to varying extents. I know they have hardships and deal with discrimination on a regular basis. I just balk whenever someone tries to equate their situation with pre-60s civil rights for blacks. Because seriously, not the same thing.
No, it's not the same thing... but they may have to be just as active to get what they want.
He's repealed DADT, enforced visitation rights, and at least tried to outlaw discrimination and hate crimes.
I don't want to validate Scalfin's other silliness, but this is actually a good point. Can anybody think of an American president friendlier toward gays?
That's not to say he's done enough, but he's moved farther and faster than anyone else I can think of.
Except that two of those things he didn't do.
He didn't repeal DADT, and "at least tried" isn't actually doing anything. It's nice, yeah, but still. Was every president for the last like, 6 of them super-environmental because they gave speeches about alternative energy?
I was under the misconception that it was the full senate that passed the armed services bill in may rather than the Armed Services Committee. Honestly, I'd be all for dissolving the senate if I thought Beau Biden had the chops to voice the Joker.
The "at least" was because I knew both had been inserted into various bills, but I can't remember how successfully.
It's helpful to analogize to the civil rights movement because it was a movement to grant people freedom from discrimination that was readily apparent around the country. The gay rights movement wants the same thing. Comparing them isn't trying to devalue what blacks went through or prop up what gays go through.
If we're making analogies, who is the face of the gay rights movement? Who is the compelling orator giving speeches and enjoying national celebrity? Blacks had Douglas and MLK in their corner; gays have ... Barney Frank?
Harvey Milk.
And all those trannies and crossdressers who beat up cops at Stonewall.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
It's helpful to analogize to the civil rights movement because it was a movement to grant people freedom from discrimination that was readily apparent around the country. The gay rights movement wants the same thing. Comparing them isn't trying to devalue what blacks went through or prop up what gays go through.
If we're making analogies, who is the face of the gay rights movement? Who is the compelling orator giving speeches and enjoying national celebrity? Blacks had Douglas and MLK in their corner; gays have ... Barney Frank?
Harvey Milk.
And all those trannies and crossdressers who beat up cops at Stonewall.
By "superficial," I meant that marriage is an outward signifier of the status of a relationship; it is a ceremony that is often meaningless to begin with, has a very sketchy history (economic contracts where men bought young girls for a brideprice from their fathers), and is not something I consider at all essential to my relationship with my loved one or our future together. Also, I am skeptical of and usually hostile to ritual and ceremony to begin with.
Okay. Then by the power of the Internet, I forbid you to get married and am denying you common-law spouse benefits. Also, if your non-spouse gets sick, you can't visit them in the hospital unless you happen to make friends with a tolerant nurse who doesn't want to cause trouble for you, and if your non-spouse dies, I hope the will is all set up right, because there's a good chance some small-town judge is going to try to screw you over and give it to your non-spouse's estranged family instead of you. Since you're not married.
But really, it's just a formality.
Also, if one of you has kids and then you split up, only the biological parent gets custody, no matter who actually did the raising.
Oh, and you might not get to be buried next to each other if your family disapproves.
Oh, and as a couple in CA recently found out, if you are elderly and one of you gets sick/hurt, the state may send you both to separate retirement homes against your will and sell off all your stuff to pay for it. Even if you've legally prepared for retirement.
Oh and if you fall in love with someone from another country they can't gain citizenship by marrying you, and hence may have to leave the country (and you) when their visa expires.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
It's helpful to analogize to the civil rights movement because it was a movement to grant people freedom from discrimination that was readily apparent around the country. The gay rights movement wants the same thing. Comparing them isn't trying to devalue what blacks went through or prop up what gays go through.
If we're making analogies, who is the face of the gay rights movement? Who is the compelling orator giving speeches and enjoying national celebrity? Blacks had Douglas and MLK in their corner; gays have ... Barney Frank?
Harvey Milk.
And all those trannies and crossdressers who beat up cops at Stonewall.
Harvey Milk is giving speeches now?
As many as MLK is.
One of his better ones is in the OP.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Which also isn't possible right now because there certainly aren't 60 Senators who aren't some manner of dumbass.
Speaking of populations in need of a culling (a natural one through time, of course)...
Who said that it has to be natural? I'm just saying that a premature attack on Zama Regia would result in Cannae. You see, in the game of checkers it's crucial that you don't throw the finishing blow until the queen's hot. Yahtzee.
Thanatos has it right: we need to rely on scorched earth and guerrillas until the opposition is manageable enough for us to switch from the tactics of the Second Punic War to those of the third, and we all know what happened in the third.
Really, the only place where the Punic War comparison breaks down is that the Romans only had to deal with the Carthaginian alliance. Now, we could simply deal with that by considering gay rights to be a specific province of Rome, but it'd be more accurate to imagine Rome being attacked be both Hannibal's army (gay marriage bans and opposition) and an army structured in a way that allows for competent sieges (all the stuff that could cause the collapse of the country). Currently, the other army is so large that we can't really spare anything to deal with Hannibal at the moment.
By "superficial," I meant that marriage is an outward signifier of the status of a relationship; it is a ceremony that is often meaningless to begin with, has a very sketchy history (economic contracts where men bought young girls for a brideprice from their fathers), and is not something I consider at all essential to my relationship with my loved one or our future together. Also, I am skeptical of and usually hostile to ritual and ceremony to begin with.
Okay. Then by the power of the Internet, I forbid you to get married and am denying you common-law spouse benefits. Also, if your non-spouse gets sick, you can't visit them in the hospital unless you happen to make friends with a tolerant nurse who doesn't want to cause trouble for you, and if your non-spouse dies, I hope the will is all set up right, because there's a good chance some small-town judge is going to try to screw you over and give it to your non-spouse's estranged family instead of you. Since you're not married.
But really, it's just a formality.
Also, if one of you has kids and then you split up, only the biological parent gets custody, no matter who actually did the raising.
Oh, and you might not get to be buried next to each other if your family disapproves.
Oh, and as a couple in CA recently found out, if you are elderly and one of you gets sick/hurt, the state may send you both to separate retirement homes against your will and sell off all your stuff to pay for it. Even if you've legally prepared for retirement.
Oh and if you fall in love with someone from another country they can't gain citizenship by marrying you, and hence may have to leave the country (and you) when their visa expires.
I might be a bit confused, but I'm pretty sure Obama dealt with the latter two.
By "superficial," I meant that marriage is an outward signifier of the status of a relationship; it is a ceremony that is often meaningless to begin with, has a very sketchy history (economic contracts where men bought young girls for a brideprice from their fathers), and is not something I consider at all essential to my relationship with my loved one or our future together. Also, I am skeptical of and usually hostile to ritual and ceremony to begin with.
Okay. Then by the power of the Internet, I forbid you to get married and am denying you common-law spouse benefits. Also, if your non-spouse gets sick, you can't visit them in the hospital unless you happen to make friends with a tolerant nurse who doesn't want to cause trouble for you, and if your non-spouse dies, I hope the will is all set up right, because there's a good chance some small-town judge is going to try to screw you over and give it to your non-spouse's estranged family instead of you. Since you're not married.
But really, it's just a formality.
Also, if one of you has kids and then you split up, only the biological parent gets custody, no matter who actually did the raising.
Oh, and you might not get to be buried next to each other if your family disapproves.
Oh, and as a couple in CA recently found out, if you are elderly and one of you gets sick/hurt, the state may send you both to separate retirement homes against your will and sell off all your stuff to pay for it. Even if you've legally prepared for retirement.
Oh and if you fall in love with someone from another country they can't gain citizenship by marrying you, and hence may have to leave the country (and you) when their visa expires.
I might be a bit confused, but I'm pretty sure Obama dealt with the latter two.
The immigration bill is still in committee.
The elderly couple in question (well, one of them, the other died miles from his partner), that case goes to court in July. I brought it up as an example of how no matter how much legal wrangling you do, it comes down to who enforces things. So now the surviving man has only a single photo of his 20 year partner and all his worldly possessions are gone.
I can't say 100% that if the couple in question had been married, fully married in the eyes of state and federal law, that these people wouldn't have screwed them over anyway. But I bet they would have thought about it a bit more.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
When is the judge expected to reach a decision in the Prop 8 case?
*shrug*
About 30 seconds before it gets appealed?
Good one.
I'm pretty sure there's a time limit on how long a federal judge has to issue a decision, but I don't know it off the top of my head. I will say that when the judge asks your side (Yes on 8) why they didn't put on more evidence that it's not looking good for you.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
These kinds of illustrations are getting weird for me.
The checkers thing was because I wanted to say "you have to strike the finishing blow when the iron's hot," but that would have been a mixed metaphor, so I just decided to give Gretski the ball and let him run with it.
I used "Carthaginian alliance" because very few of Hannibal's troops were actually Carthaginian. They were mainly mercenaries being paid by a share of any loot captured, meaning that they didn't have the type of patience needed for sieges or attrition warfare. I reference the second Punic War because the Romans were getting their asses handed to them until Quintus Fabius Maximus realized that the only battle that ever matters is the last one, and proceeded to give Hannibal Pyrrhic victory* after Pyrrhic victory. Now, this was quite effective, but so demoralizing that Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paullus went over Fabius' helmet‡ to send basically all Roman forces to Cannae to be utterly and totally obliterated. After that, Rome turned back to Fabius (although he never got his dictorial powers back, official powers being given to his followers), and used his strategies to hold off Hannibal with a ragtag assortment of slaves and criminals until the Carthaginians were weak enough for the Romans to retake all the territory lost and follow Hannibal back to Africa, acheiving a final, crushing victory in Zama Regia, winning the second Punic War and forcing Carthage to accept what was probably the most aggressive peace treaty in all of history.
All you need to know about the third Punic War is that, to this day, nothing grows where the city of Carthage once stood.
*
The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war.
The link itself is behind a regwall but towleroad has an excerpt.
"The absence of a position from the Justice Department in favor of expanding civil rights is as shocking as the absence of a coherent White House policy on gay issues. There is no senior policy person at the White House whose primary responsibility is gay rights. And there is no gay person in Mr. Obama's inner circle of advisers. That matters when trying to get attention for issues in an already overcrowded agenda, and the result is obvious. It's true that this president is no George W. Bush, or John McCain, for that matter. He signed into law a long-sought amendment to the federal hate-crimes statute, which added sexual orientation as a protected class. Many cabinet agencies have taken steps to make their rules and regulations more gay-friendly, most significantly with respect to issues like hospital visitation and, earlier this week, some aspects of family medical leave. That's all good news. Mr. Obama entered office with greater immediate challenges confronting him than most. But after eight years of benign neglect (at best) from Washington, and a campaign in which Mr. Obama promised to be our champion, gay Americans had good reason to expect more from this president, and now are understandably frustrated."
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I think it is unjust that gay people cannot get married. I think it is disengenuous to imply that the legal obstacle of marriage is the main contribution to the high suicide rate and other problems for gays.
It is an inextricable part of the culture which always marginalizes and sometimes irreparably damages gay Americans.
Edit: Also, you never answered my question. What exactly do you want Obama to do to legalize gay marriage? Isn't that the job of Congress? Shouldn't your ire be directed at them? (Specifically, all of the Republicans and a minority of deuchebag Dems?)
I have actually said almost nothing about Obama. I entered this thread in response to Scalfin's absolutely unconscionable word vomit.
You are also using rose-tinted glasses if you think that a majority of Democratic Senators are on the books for gay marriage. Recall that no serious Democratic presidential hopeful has ever supported gay marriage; Hillary, Biden, Obama, Kerry, Dean, Gore, Clinton... in their day they were all against. Marriage is, after all, between a man and a woman.
I think it is unjust that gay people cannot get married. I think it is disengenuous to imply that the legal obstacle of marriage is the main contribution to the high suicide rate and other problems for gays.
It is an inextricable part of the culture which always marginalizes and sometimes irreparably damages gay Americans.
Edit: Also, you never answered my question. What exactly do you want Obama to do to legalize gay marriage? Isn't that the job of Congress? Shouldn't your ire be directed at them? (Specifically, all of the Republicans and a minority of deuchebag Dems?)
I have actually said almost nothing about Obama. I entered this thread in response to Scalfin's absolutely unconscionable word vomit.
You are also using rose-tinted glasses if you think that a majority of Democratic Senators are on the books for gay marriage. Recall that no serious Democratic presidential hopeful has ever supported gay marriage; Hillary, Biden, Obama, Kerry, Dean, Gore, Clinton... in their day they were all against. Marriage is, after all, between a man and a woman.
He's not saying we have the senate; he's saying that the senate is, as always, the limiting factor. Without the senate, any attempts by Obama on the issue would be a waste of time.
These kinds of illustrations are getting weird for me.
*informative information*
Er, couldn't you use any war/boardgame as an analog to this whole gay thing, depending on how you want to spin it? Like, say, a comparison to the trench warfare from WW1 should be your inspiration. Two uncompromising sides battling slowly for precious inches and any politician who sticks his or her head up too high in support of gay rights will meet their doom from conservative machine gunfire. Any advances are incredibly risky, making artillery support from the court system and aerial recon from the White House vital.
These kinds of illustrations are getting weird for me.
*informative information*
Er, couldn't you use any war/boardgame as an analog to this whole gay thing, depending on how you want to spin it? Like, say, a comparison to the trench warfare from WW1 should be your inspiration. Two uncompromising sides battling slowly for precious inches and any politician who sticks his or her head up too high in support of gay rights will meet their doom from conservative machine gunfire. Any advances are incredibly risky, making artillery support from the court system and aerial recon from the White House vital.
My education on Roman history is where I first learned about the Fabian strategy, and the idea of only trying to win guaranteed victories that underpinned Rome's victory is what I was trying to convey, although I suppose an easier analogy would be "never go for a gorgetted jugular."
The second Punic war also features a good example of what happens if you deviate from the Fabian strategy (you lose one fifth of your adult male population) and what happens to your opposition if you follow it (you go to where they live, kick their asses, get them to agree to whatever you want, and come back a few years later to rape them to death).
Edit: This is also the school of thought that inspired George Washington, Bertrand du Guesclin, Barclay de Tolly, and Britain's suffrage movement (most liberal issues of the time were aligned with or under the umbrella of the Fabian Society, which would go on to become the Labour Party).
My education on Roman history is where I first learned about the Fabian strategy, and the idea of only trying to win guaranteed victories that underpinned Rome's victory is what I was trying to convey, although I suppose an easier analogy would be "never go for a gorgetted jugular."
This is some epically stupid shit, and appears to mostly be an opportunity to show us all how much trivia you know.
MrMister on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
My education on Roman history is where I first learned about the Fabian strategy, and the idea of only trying to win guaranteed victories that underpinned Rome's victory is what I was trying to convey, although I suppose an easier analogy would be "never go for a gorgetted jugular."
This is some epically stupid shit, and appears to mostly be an opportunity to show us all how much trivia you know.
Look, Scalfin's already told us that the President ought to prioritize issues that are important to Scalfin, and anybody who wants issues they like (but which Scalfin doesn't also prioritize) to be important are whiny fucks who just want attention; the other stuff is just filler.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Look, Scalfin's already told us that the President ought to prioritize issues that are important to Scalfin, and anybody who wants issues they like (but which Scalfin doesn't also prioritize) to be important are whiny fucks who just want attention; the other stuff is just filler.
Filler indeed.
I guarantee that his 'spergy, unhinged rant about them uppity gays was not motivated by his superficial knowledge of ancient Roman military strategy.
Look, Scalfin's already told us that the President ought to prioritize issues that are important to Scalfin, and anybody who wants issues they like (but which Scalfin doesn't also prioritize) to be important are whiny fucks who just want attention; the other stuff is just filler.
As I've said plenty of times, I have my own priorities, but recognize that what I want can't always be on the top of the heap. What offends me is "there will always be something, doitnowdoitnowdoitnowdoitnowmefirstdoitnowmefrstdoitnowmefirstdoitnowmefirstdoitnowdoitnowdoitnowmefirstmefirstmefirstdoitnowdoitnow." The president's already put some work into gay rights, now he has to work on other stuff. Grow up and learn to accept that.
Actually, what really gets me is just how easily "there will always be economic problems, so we should work on disenfranchisement first" can be reversed to say "there will always be some sort of disenfranchisement, so we should work on the economy first." Really, the whole thing is just "there will always be people in line, so we should get to go straight to the front."
My education on Roman history is where I first learned about the Fabian strategy, and the idea of only trying to win guaranteed victories that underpinned Rome's victory is what I was trying to convey, although I suppose an easier analogy would be "never go for a gorgetted jugular."
This is some epically stupid shit, and appears to mostly be an opportunity to show us all how much trivia you know.
Somebody asked for an explanation, so I gave it. When I posted the first allusion, I figured most people would either be familiar with the terms or figure it out from context.
The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited June 2010
Scalfin there are currently a half dozen threads on PA about a variety of political issues. Why the fuck don't you go into, say, the Afghanistan thread and start babbling about how the oil spill is more important?
The answer is because the people in the Afghanistan thread would think you were an unbelievably stupid fucking piece of shit to do that. And they would be right!
Hachface on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
My education on Roman history is where I first learned about the Fabian strategy, and the idea of only trying to win guaranteed victories that underpinned Rome's victory is what I was trying to convey, although I suppose an easier analogy would be "never go for a gorgetted jugular."
This is some epically stupid shit, and appears to mostly be an opportunity to show us all how much trivia you know.
Somebody asked for an explanation, so I gave it. When I posted the first allusion, I figured most people would either be familiar with the terms or figure it out from context.
Ah yes, the problem was our ignorance. If only we had paid attention in world civ we would have agreed with you the first time around, and would not have needed a mini-lesson.
Posts
Yet, you are getting married. If marriage is 'superficial' why are you excited about it and why would you be pissed if you couldn't? If you're excited about it why isn't it centrally important? Clearly marriage is important enough for you that you are actually getting married, rather than saying "We don't need a piece of paper to say we love each other."
You have the luxury of debating about whether other people should get rights you already have - rights that are so easily available to you that you can be ambivalent, take-it-or-leave-it about them. Turning around and telling people who do not have the rights you do that their priorities are wrong, and they should not be making such a fuss to have those rights, is disingenuous.
ETA: the argument that same-sex marriage is 'not the biggest problem' for LGBTs is also a false dilemma. But you knew that.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
By "superficial," I meant that marriage is an outward signifier of the status of a relationship; it is a ceremony that is often meaningless to begin with, has a very sketchy history (economic contracts where men bought young girls for a brideprice from their fathers), and is not something I consider at all essential to my relationship with my loved one or our future together. Also, I am skeptical of and usually hostile to ritual and ceremony to begin with.
Yes, I have that "luxury," but I don't think what I say is inaccurate. Maybe I'm being premature, but I don't think undergoing the ceremony of marriage is somehow going to strengthen or deepen my relationship or the love I feel towards my fiance. So, it's "superficial" in that respect.
Now, I guess there are probably lots of people who place way more importance on the ceremony of marriage than I do. But really, how important, in the grand scheme of things, is it? It doesn't strike me as nearly as important as the right to actually get lodging or housing (denied to black people), or equal opportunity in employment or schooling. It actually strikes me as less important than the right to legally smoke weed, a right which I do not currently have.
Yes. I think another way to look at it, perhaps, is that legalizing same-sex marriage would be a signifier for a certain level of cultural acceptance for gays (along with the more important legal equality, which could be achieved with civil unions or whatever). But the main problem isn't that gays lack a signifier for cultural acceptance, it's that they're not culturally accepted.
Please, Qingu. Just stop.
I agree 100%.
I recognize that, in most places, being gay sucks to varying extents. I know they have hardships and deal with discrimination on a regular basis. I just balk whenever someone tries to equate their situation with pre-60s civil rights for blacks. Because seriously, not the same thing.
Okay. Then by the power of the Internet, I forbid you to get married and am denying you common-law spouse benefits. Also, if your non-spouse gets sick, you can't visit them in the hospital unless you happen to make friends with a tolerant nurse who doesn't want to cause trouble for you, and if your non-spouse dies, I hope the will is all set up right, because there's a good chance some small-town judge is going to try to screw you over and give it to your non-spouse's estranged family instead of you. Since you're not married.
But really, it's just a formality.
That said, it would suck. It would not suck on the level of what blacks went through before and during civil rights. It would also, arguably, not suck on the level of being imprisoned for smoking marijuana.
Apparently, just important enough for you to be excited about getting married and to be pissed at the idea that you might be denied to go through with your planned marriage, yet not important enough for same-sex couples to want to be allowed to get married to their loved ones.
Arguing that other things may be more important is a false dilemma. You're pretending that LGBT activists are not pushing for anything except same-sex marriage rights, and that if you can think of something else that in your opinion they "should" be doing instead, then they should STFU about the marriage already. The idea that LGBT groups are already pushing for employment rights, the protection of throwaway kids expelled by their homophobic families, is not something you appear to be aware of, nor are you willing to acknowledge that it is possible to work for more than one type of right at the same time.
ETA: and again, re same-sex unions, I can't help but notice you're going for the Big M instead of a civil union; perhaps it's because you're aware that "separate but equal" never is, or that civil unions do not in fact have all (or even most) of the responsibilities and benefits of marriage.
I find it difficult to believe that your comment about smoking pot is anything more than trolling. One would have to be a silly goose indeed to say "Yeah, I can get married and I'm gonna and you're not allowed to, but that's not nearly as important as whether I can legally smoke a joint!" That's a level of self-centered I-got-mine-Jackery that I don't think you seriously mean.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Exactly. People are using it as an example because it is analogous in many ways, but not all ways.
I don't think it's really necessary to have sort of argument about what type of discrimination is worse. They're both fucking terrible and we should be working to eliminate it. It's helpful to analogize to the civil rights movement because it was a movement to grant people freedom from discrimination that was readily apparent around the country. The gay rights movement wants the same thing. Comparing them isn't trying to devalue what blacks went through or prop up what gays go through.
Tak, if you have those powers, why don't you use them for good and not ill?
If we're making analogies, who is the face of the gay rights movement? Who is the compelling orator giving speeches and enjoying national celebrity? Blacks had Douglas and MLK in their corner; gays have ... Barney Frank?
I was under the misconception that it was the full senate that passed the armed services bill in may rather than the Armed Services Committee. Honestly, I'd be all for dissolving the senate if I thought Beau Biden had the chops to voice the Joker.
The "at least" was because I knew both had been inserted into various bills, but I can't remember how successfully.
Harvey Milk.
And all those trannies and crossdressers who beat up cops at Stonewall.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Harvey Milk is giving speeches now?
Also, if one of you has kids and then you split up, only the biological parent gets custody, no matter who actually did the raising.
Oh, and you might not get to be buried next to each other if your family disapproves.
Oh, and as a couple in CA recently found out, if you are elderly and one of you gets sick/hurt, the state may send you both to separate retirement homes against your will and sell off all your stuff to pay for it. Even if you've legally prepared for retirement.
Oh and if you fall in love with someone from another country they can't gain citizenship by marrying you, and hence may have to leave the country (and you) when their visa expires.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
As many as MLK is.
One of his better ones is in the OP.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Who said that it has to be natural? I'm just saying that a premature attack on Zama Regia would result in Cannae. You see, in the game of checkers it's crucial that you don't throw the finishing blow until the queen's hot. Yahtzee.
Thanatos has it right: we need to rely on scorched earth and guerrillas until the opposition is manageable enough for us to switch from the tactics of the Second Punic War to those of the third, and we all know what happened in the third.
Really, the only place where the Punic War comparison breaks down is that the Romans only had to deal with the Carthaginian alliance. Now, we could simply deal with that by considering gay rights to be a specific province of Rome, but it'd be more accurate to imagine Rome being attacked be both Hannibal's army (gay marriage bans and opposition) and an army structured in a way that allows for competent sieges (all the stuff that could cause the collapse of the country). Currently, the other army is so large that we can't really spare anything to deal with Hannibal at the moment.
I might be a bit confused, but I'm pretty sure Obama dealt with the latter two.
These kinds of illustrations are getting weird for me.
The immigration bill is still in committee.
The elderly couple in question (well, one of them, the other died miles from his partner), that case goes to court in July. I brought it up as an example of how no matter how much legal wrangling you do, it comes down to who enforces things. So now the surviving man has only a single photo of his 20 year partner and all his worldly possessions are gone.
I can't say 100% that if the couple in question had been married, fully married in the eyes of state and federal law, that these people wouldn't have screwed them over anyway. But I bet they would have thought about it a bit more.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
*shrug*
About 30 seconds before it gets appealed?
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Good one.
I'm pretty sure there's a time limit on how long a federal judge has to issue a decision, but I don't know it off the top of my head. I will say that when the judge asks your side (Yes on 8) why they didn't put on more evidence that it's not looking good for you.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The checkers thing was because I wanted to say "you have to strike the finishing blow when the iron's hot," but that would have been a mixed metaphor, so I just decided to give Gretski the ball and let him run with it.
I used "Carthaginian alliance" because very few of Hannibal's troops were actually Carthaginian. They were mainly mercenaries being paid by a share of any loot captured, meaning that they didn't have the type of patience needed for sieges or attrition warfare. I reference the second Punic War because the Romans were getting their asses handed to them until Quintus Fabius Maximus realized that the only battle that ever matters is the last one, and proceeded to give Hannibal Pyrrhic victory* after Pyrrhic victory. Now, this was quite effective, but so demoralizing that Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paullus went over Fabius' helmet‡ to send basically all Roman forces to Cannae to be utterly and totally obliterated. After that, Rome turned back to Fabius (although he never got his dictorial powers back, official powers being given to his followers), and used his strategies to hold off Hannibal with a ragtag assortment of slaves and criminals until the Carthaginians were weak enough for the Romans to retake all the territory lost and follow Hannibal back to Africa, acheiving a final, crushing victory in Zama Regia, winning the second Punic War and forcing Carthage to accept what was probably the most aggressive peace treaty in all of history.
All you need to know about the third Punic War is that, to this day, nothing grows where the city of Carthage once stood.
*
‡
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629804575325231395396708.html
The link itself is behind a regwall but towleroad has an excerpt.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
It is an inextricable part of the culture which always marginalizes and sometimes irreparably damages gay Americans.
I have actually said almost nothing about Obama. I entered this thread in response to Scalfin's absolutely unconscionable word vomit.
You are also using rose-tinted glasses if you think that a majority of Democratic Senators are on the books for gay marriage. Recall that no serious Democratic presidential hopeful has ever supported gay marriage; Hillary, Biden, Obama, Kerry, Dean, Gore, Clinton... in their day they were all against. Marriage is, after all, between a man and a woman.
He's not saying we have the senate; he's saying that the senate is, as always, the limiting factor. Without the senate, any attempts by Obama on the issue would be a waste of time.
Er, couldn't you use any war/boardgame as an analog to this whole gay thing, depending on how you want to spin it? Like, say, a comparison to the trench warfare from WW1 should be your inspiration. Two uncompromising sides battling slowly for precious inches and any politician who sticks his or her head up too high in support of gay rights will meet their doom from conservative machine gunfire. Any advances are incredibly risky, making artillery support from the court system and aerial recon from the White House vital.
My education on Roman history is where I first learned about the Fabian strategy, and the idea of only trying to win guaranteed victories that underpinned Rome's victory is what I was trying to convey, although I suppose an easier analogy would be "never go for a gorgetted jugular."
The second Punic war also features a good example of what happens if you deviate from the Fabian strategy (you lose one fifth of your adult male population) and what happens to your opposition if you follow it (you go to where they live, kick their asses, get them to agree to whatever you want, and come back a few years later to rape them to death).
Edit: This is also the school of thought that inspired George Washington, Bertrand du Guesclin, Barclay de Tolly, and Britain's suffrage movement (most liberal issues of the time were aligned with or under the umbrella of the Fabian Society, which would go on to become the Labour Party).
This is some epically stupid shit, and appears to mostly be an opportunity to show us all how much trivia you know.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Filler indeed.
I guarantee that his 'spergy, unhinged rant about them uppity gays was not motivated by his superficial knowledge of ancient Roman military strategy.
As I've said plenty of times, I have my own priorities, but recognize that what I want can't always be on the top of the heap. What offends me is "there will always be something, doitnowdoitnowdoitnowdoitnowmefirstdoitnowmefrstdoitnowmefirstdoitnowmefirstdoitnowdoitnowdoitnowmefirstmefirstmefirstdoitnowdoitnow." The president's already put some work into gay rights, now he has to work on other stuff. Grow up and learn to accept that.
Actually, what really gets me is just how easily "there will always be economic problems, so we should work on disenfranchisement first" can be reversed to say "there will always be some sort of disenfranchisement, so we should work on the economy first." Really, the whole thing is just "there will always be people in line, so we should get to go straight to the front."
Somebody asked for an explanation, so I gave it. When I posted the first allusion, I figured most people would either be familiar with the terms or figure it out from context.
The answer is because the people in the Afghanistan thread would think you were an unbelievably stupid fucking piece of shit to do that. And they would be right!
Ah yes, the problem was our ignorance. If only we had paid attention in world civ we would have agreed with you the first time around, and would not have needed a mini-lesson.