I lied.
"This is for Holland-Dozier-Holland!": The Musical Interlude
I hope this qualifies as getting intertextual, which I believe is quite post-modernist, but I could be wrong.
I just happened to come across this thread in my sidebar (updated conversations and all that).
I love the multitude of responses in this thread. It really puts the lie to the whole "gay lifestyle" thing. I doubt that most individuals using that term picture a group of Alphabet People (it's easier than LGBTQPA) sitting down to play D&D.
Out of curiosity, did anyone here attend the GaymerCon last year? I really wanted to go but sadly I just didn't have the funds when the time rolled around. I'm planning on trying to attend at the one this July and just interested if it's worth going in the opinion of anyone who attended the first one.
I doubt that most individuals using that term picture a group of Alphabet People (it's easier than LGBTQPA) sitting down to play D&D.
LGBTQPA? What is P for?
I doubt that most individuals using that term picture a group of Alphabet People (it's easier than LGBTQPA) sitting down to play D&D.LGBTQPA? What is P for?
Pansexual.
There's actually more than that - I just couldn't remember them all.
I doubt that most individuals using that term picture a group of Alphabet People (it's easier than LGBTQPA) sitting down to play D&D.LGBTQPA? What is P for?Pansexual.
There's actually more than that - I just couldn't remember them all.
Thanks.
I've got the whole alphabet in my playgroup, and gaming isn't just something we do. It is what we bonded over. I have never been involved in anything else that I could imagine a MtF, an FtM twink, a Bear, a Femme, an Ace, an agendered Q, and a "whatever" (his words) bonding over. And for that, I will always be grateful to gaming.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather not. These are real people, with real lives and futures that you're gambling with. Not poker chips to raise the stakes with. I'm not okay with f#*~ing with people's lives just for the chance at maintaining the Senate. A chance, not for certain, but a chance. F@*% that.
I get what you mean—but pragmatically, wanting it to pass for a downstream political goal is throwing thousands of people under the bus for political points. It's our lives you're gambling with! Please keep that in mind before you regret too much that queer folks (and people perceived as queer) kept their right to, e.g., buy groceries, or call the loss of that right "excellent."And more good breaking news! Governor Brewer made the right call and vetoed the Religious Freedom bill![...]If that awful bill had been signed into law, it would have made such an excellent wedge issue for the 2014 midterms. That injustice could have ignited the base while simultaneously winning over independents. Those are two things the Democrats will desperately need next November.
Emotionally, I'm glad what's-her-face vetoed it. Pragmatically, not so much.
Unfortunately, with improving things, sometimes you're left with two choices: Throw thousands under the bus now or throw millions under the bus later. Which is why it is that engineering social change really should be left to sociopaths; they're the only ones who can make the necessary sacrifices and not suffer mental degradation because of what they've done. Unfortunately, sociopaths are not known for being agents of good change... so we have to not only potentially sacrifice thousands of people for the short term, but also sacrifice the sanity of good people in the process.
The problem is that we will not get democrat Presidents forever. Nor should we. But right now, if we get a Republican in without discriminating against those who are not what is considered "normal" being a hotbed issue, it is quite likely there will end up some law passed that has that discrimination, only on a nation-wide scale. Due, of course, to the massive campaign for it. And it might be years before the law even sees a courtroom, due to the very fact the courts can then refuse to hear it based on the law.
Right now, we're playing the odds... and if what I fear is right, we're playing the odds and losing. We're going to have to sacrifice thousands before that law comes into play... if we don't, we may be sacrificing millions instead.
It's cold-hearted and ruthless. But sometimes, that's your only option.
I get what you mean—but pragmatically, wanting it to pass for a downstream political goal is throwing thousands of people under the bus for political points. It's our lives you're gambling with! Please keep that in mind before you regret too much that queer folks (and people perceived as queer) kept their right to, e.g., buy groceries, or call the loss of that right "excellent."I'm absolutely okay with throwing a few thousand people under the buss if it means maintaining the Senate in 2014-2016. The good that Obama could do in his last 2 years with Senate backing far outweighs the minimal harm that would befall the people of Arizona for the few months before that law was struck down as unconstitutional. A missed opportunity to raise utter hell and dominate the headlines.
So I don't seem hypocritical (just ruthless), I'm openly gay and would welcome this law in my state.
You're welcome to whatever political beliefs you wish, but I can't help but be absolutely aghast at that sort of willingness to cause real harm to people in the name of supporting a specific political party.
I would argue that the country as a whole is seeing a sea change in terms of LGBT rights which pleases me to no end, and that it's no longer such a clear cut Liberal/Conservative issue.
A large chunk of normally Democrat-supporting voters approved of Prop 8 in California, and I would argue that it's only an increasingly marginalized (by their own party) the far right social wing of the Republican party that is against LGBT equal rights, rather than the amalgamation of the economic right/libertarian/centrist wing of that party.
I'm not personally willing to cause real harm to real people just to score political points for one party or the other.
Yeah I'll be honest, I have little faith in either party to be on the side of LGBT issues. Or on the side of their voters for that matter. But I have a cynical, negative view on politicians, so I generally think that neither party has the average citizen's interests in mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'll be honest, I have little faith in either party to be on the side of LGBT issues. Or on the side of their voters for that matter. But I have a cynical, negative view on politicians, so I generally think that neither party has the average citizen's interests in mind.
Oh, none of them have the citizen's interests in mind at all. The issue is, which group is easiest, on the people who will get elected, to manipulate to back our cause. It's not the Republicans; too many of them are in the pockets of the opposition. So, find the democrats we can, get them in our pocket, keep them until they're no longer useful.
If the above sounds dirty and underhanded... that's because it is. But that's how the system currently works.
Now, off to deal with things I need to deal with.
Sadly that "far right social wing of the Republican party" has far more control over the Republican party than their numbers might suggest. It's really hard to argue they're increasingly marginalized when they're driving policy in so many states and blocking progress on the federal level.
The economic right/libertarian (not centrist) wing of the party may not care about the social issues, but they cater to them for primary votes.The Dems may not be as reliable on LGBT rights as we'd like and the sea change may be affecting moderate Republican voters, but suggesting there's little difference between the two on LGBT issues is just not realistic.
Too often on a national level, the Dems absolutely take LGBT votes for granted without doing much of anything after an election is over IMO versus larger voting blocks that they can't ignore.
I'm always in a bind when it comes to elections because I refuse to vote for religious conservatives but I also refuse to vote for folks on the economic far left. Moderates in both parties sadly tend to vanish because of the way that primaries are run in this country which tends to greatly amplify the voting power of the far left and far right in both the Dem and Repub camps. Sigh.
Yeah I'll be honest, I have little faith in either party to be on the side of LGBT issues. Or on the side of their voters for that matter. But I have a cynical, negative view on politicians, so I generally think that neither party has the average citizen's interests in mind.I think things were swinging in favor of gays in this country no matter what the politicians did. I also think that Obama - and Biden before him (god bless that wacky dude) - coming out in favor of gay marriage was a MASSIVE boost.
Honestly, one of my biggest fears is that the issue of same-sex marriage is going to be extended by either side so that A) Democrats can have continued support and B) to distract citizens from other major issues that are plaguing the country. I have this feeling they are going to milk this cow for all it's worth until there reaches a breaking point.
Perhaps. Maybe I'm just too jaded on politicians...
Too often on a national level, the Dems absolutely take LGBT votes for granted without doing much of anything after an election is over IMO versus larger voting blocks that they can't ignore.
That might itself might be the most harm the republican far right is doing for the case for equal rights. As long as the republicans are the virulently anti homosexuality party the democrats don't NEED to do anything pro homosexuality to keep the votes: even zero support is better than the republican opposition.
The (more) cynical part of me wonders if that's not the plan...
A decade? I would have guessed that as well this time last year, but the way thing's are going, we'll being seeing a SCOTUS decision in a year or two, tops. That's assuming they even bother taking such a case after it makes it to the circuit court, as it apparently will in Texas.
More states will follow and we'll see a Supreme Court decision within a decade.
"Within". I'd love it to be sooner, though I'd also love one more democratic appointed Justice just to be sure.
They could also rule on narrow grounds again to avoid a final decision.
I actually suspect it would be a very lopsided decision in favor of equal rights by the current court, with some bizarre bedfellows that don't normally make sense with the conventional wisdom of Conservative majority/Liberal minority.
I actually suspect it would be a very lopsided decision in favor of equal rights by the current court, with some bizarre bedfellows that don't normally make sense with the conventional wisdom of Conservative majority/Liberal minority.A decade? I would have guessed that as well this time last year, but the way thing's are going, we'll being seeing a SCOTUS decision in a year or two, tops. That's assuming they even bother taking such a case after it makes it to the circuit court, as it apparently will in Texas.
More states will follow and we'll see a Supreme Court decision within a decade.
"Within". I'd love it to be sooner, though I'd also love one more democratic appointed Justice just to be sure.
They could also rule on narrow grounds again to avoid a final decision.
Possible. Thomas and Scalia against. Kennedy the swing vote. Roberts and possibly Alito jumping on board once the decision is guaranteed. They don't want to look like they're on the wrong side of history.
If they can stall it or make a narrow ruling, that's what I'd expect.
I think people are being unrealistically optimistic with this timeframe. Even a decade may be too optimistic.
The Supreme Court has gone out of its way to avoid saying gay marriage is constitutional, and by all sides is actively trying to avoid the issue. Considering they are supposed to rule impartially, the fact they're actively trying to avoid having to rule at all speaks volumes. Backing SCOTUS into a corner on this by trying to get them to decide within the decade may get a decision we don't want to have.
Fascinating exchange.
I doubt that most individuals using that term picture a group of Alphabet People (it's easier than LGBTQPA) sitting down to play D&D.LGBTQPA? What is P for?Pansexual.
There's actually more than that - I just couldn't remember them all.
Thanks.
I've got the whole alphabet in my playgroup, and gaming isn't just something we do. It is what we bonded over. I have never been involved in anything else that I could imagine a MtF, an FtM twink, a Bear, a Femme, an Ace, an agendered Q, and a "whatever" (his words) bonding over. And for that, I will always be grateful to gaming.
I'm a bit out of the loop. What's an ace?
I'm a bit out of the loop. What's an ace?
Slang for someone who self-identifies their sexual orientation as asexuality.
Ah, I assumed that, but I wanted confirmation.
I'm a bit out of the loop. What's an ace?Slang for someone who self-identifies their sexual orientation as asexuality.
Huh. Didn't know there was a word for that. Beats using a sheldon...
Did you folks hear about this guy's proposal to ban openly gay football players from the league? He lost his job at a PR firm over it, but it seems like these folks are just coming out of the woodwork now that DOMA and DADA are off the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, this made me chuckle and facepalm.
|
Also, this made me chuckle and facepalm.
Yes cause as we all know coming out as gay is the same as being found out as a rascist, ya know tomatoe/tomato....
/FACEPALM /FACEPALM /FACEPALM
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's back, Mississippi style.
Mississippi got jealous with all of this talk around Arizona and Kansas and wanted to remind everyone that THEY'RE the flagship intolerant state in THESE PARTS.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just when you think you've hit rock bottom someone manages to break out the mining equipment...
Eeeeee! DC Comics’ First Transgender And Bisexual Character
cool.
Still feel weird about Alan Scott, tho...
Eeeeee! DC Comics’ First Transgender And Bisexual Charactercool.
Still feel weird about Alan Scott, tho...
Alan Scott? Don't get me started on what they did to his kid, Obsidian.
And then also don't get me started on Alan Scott.
And actually, as much as I love Alysia, she's not really the first trans* character in a DC comic. That honor would go to Neil Gaiman's Wanda from the brilliant and everlasting Sandman series.
I *think* Gigi from Legion of Super Heroes has gaiman beat.