The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Almost bought Oreos yesterday just out of spite.

Hypatian wrote:

I had mentioned being TG before on these forums, in the thread in EE about what if people could swap genders. There, I described myself as having "mild gender dysphoria".

How does cross dressing fit into your situation? I know of a number of burly men both at my current job and others who worked in a blouse, skirt, and pumps. I assume that's just as far as they were willing to go in terms of gender identity. Though I'm well aware that dressing as the opposite sex isn't necessarily related to whether one feels any kind of desire to physically be the opposite sex.

KingGorilla wrote:

Almost bought Oreos yesterday just out of spite.

*Gasp* How could you?! So spiteful...

NSMike wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Almost bought Oreos yesterday just out of spite.

*Gasp* How could you?! So spiteful...

;)

Frosted oreos - they're spitefully delicious!

Speaking of frosting...it turns out Anderson Cooper is gay. I had no idea...good for him for coming out (to the world at least).

The CNN journalist said he had kept his sexual orientation private for personal and professional reasons, but came to think that remaining silent had given some people a mistaken impression that he was ashamed.

"The fact is, I'm gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn't be any more happy, comfortable with myself and proud," he wrote in a letter to Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Beast.

Cooper, the son of Gloria Vanderbilt, had long been the subject of rumors about his sexual orientation. He said that in a perfect world, it wouldn't be anyone's business, but that there is value in "standing up and being counted."

More power to him.

Tanglebones wrote:
NSMike wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Almost bought Oreos yesterday just out of spite.

*Gasp* How could you?! So spiteful...

;)

Frosted oreos - they're spitefully delicious!

I got English Muffins instead.

Nevin73 wrote:

Speaking of frosting...it turns out Anderson Cooper is gay. I had no idea...good for him for coming out (to the world at least).

I thought it was common knowledge he was gay, but not out of the closet. There are loads of paparazzi pictures of him and his partner out and about on town and he's been on Out Magazine's annual list of the 50 most powerful gay men and women for like five years in a row now.

Nevin73 wrote:

Speaking of frosting...it turns out Anderson Cooper is gay. I had no idea...good for him for coming out (to the world at least).

Great, now an entire Channel One generation who bayed for blood when he forgot his Kevlar in Haiti is guilty of a hate crime. Well, at least he finally emerged.

complexmath wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

I had mentioned being TG before on these forums, in the thread in EE about what if people could swap genders. There, I described myself as having "mild gender dysphoria".

How does cross dressing fit into your situation? I know of a number of burly men both at my current job and others who worked in a blouse, skirt, and pumps. I assume that's just as far as they were willing to go in terms of gender identity. Though I'm well aware that dressing as the opposite sex isn't necessarily related to whether one feels any kind of desire to physically be the opposite sex.

I did a little cross dressing when I was younger and trying to figure out exactly what was going on with me. I haven't really done any recently, although I was thinking the other night that maybe I should get a pair of shoes or something to wear around the house. (Of course, in video games I cross-play [em]always[/em] and love playing dress-up. I freak out and get annoyed when there's an RPG that doesn't let me play as a woman.)

It's one of those things that people do for a variety of reasons. Just off the top of my head: You have people who do it as a sexual fetish. You have both gay and straight men people who do it as a cultural practice (e.g. drag queens). You have people who do it as a part of theater (for cultural reasons or artistic reasons). You have people who do it in an attempt to present themselves the way they wish to be seen (TG).

I'm sure there are more I can't think of right now.

(P.S. Sorry about this being in the Prop 8 thread. But, well, I don't think we really need a "ask questions about TG!" thread, and I figure it's low enough volume to not be too distracting.)

KingGorilla wrote:

Almost bought Oreos yesterday just out of spite.

No don't do it! The whole campaign was conceived and implemented by a conservative think tank inside of the Nabisco management to make the entire gay community obese!

Build-a-bear? Bilderberg? We're through the looking glass, people.

Nomad wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Almost bought Oreos yesterday just out of spite.

No don't do it! The whole campaign was conceived and implemented by a conservative think tank inside of the Nabisco management to make the entire gay community obese!

I knew that sextuple-stuffed Oreo had an ulterior motive!

Hypatian wrote:
complexmath wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

I had mentioned being TG before on these forums, in the thread in EE about what if people could swap genders. There, I described myself as having "mild gender dysphoria".

How does cross dressing fit into your situation? I know of a number of burly men both at my current job and others who worked in a blouse, skirt, and pumps. I assume that's just as far as they were willing to go in terms of gender identity. Though I'm well aware that dressing as the opposite sex isn't necessarily related to whether one feels any kind of desire to physically be the opposite sex.

I did a little cross dressing when I was younger and trying to figure out exactly what was going on with me. I haven't really done any recently, although I was thinking the other night that maybe I should get a pair of shoes or something to wear around the house. (Of course, in video games I cross-play [em]always[/em] and love playing dress-up. I freak out and get annoyed when there's an RPG that doesn't let me play as a woman.)

It's one of those things that people do for a variety of reasons. Just off the top of my head: You have people who do it as a sexual fetish. You have both gay and straight men people who do it as a cultural practice (e.g. drag queens). You have people who do it as a part of theater (for cultural reasons or artistic reasons). You have people who do it in an attempt to present themselves the way they wish to be seen (TG).

I'm sure there are more I can't think of right now.

(P.S. Sorry about this being in the Prop 8 thread. But, well, I don't think we really need a "ask questions about TG!" thread, and I figure it's low enough volume to not be too distracting.)

out of context but maybe worth sharing...(so much better with pics, sorry).

If I had the pic, I'd share it. One more reason for cross-dressing:

When you're dressing for The Mikado (Gilbert&Sullivan) and about to put on the samurai top-knot wig and robe, you notice that you're standing there in tights, make up, hairnet, etc., and that just before drawing on the huge eyebrows for samurai, it would be SO easy to go another direction entirely. Which is why most of the male cast of the men's chorus of the production I was in decided to go to the semi-formal Friday night party in drag. I discovered 3 things. 1) I will never look even close to being a woman. 2) It's really, really, really, really fun to joyfully flounce around the people who are intensely uncomfortable with guys in drag. Really funny. 3) Should one of the guys look better as a woman, and better than the majority of women at the party...well that's just a whole nother level of fun right there.

KingGorilla wrote:

Almost bought Oreos yesterday just out of spite.

Spite is the only goddamn reason I would buy Oreos. If they'd only make them taste in any way pleasant, I'd be all in.

Jonman wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Almost bought Oreos yesterday just out of spite.

Spite is the only goddamn reason I would buy Oreos. If they'd only make them taste in any way pleasant, I'd be all in.

Dipped in coffee is nice for me.

It takes a socialist.

France will institute marriage equality (and right to adoption by LBGT couples) in 2013, as promised by President Hollande during his campaign.

From the Republicans discover that Islam is a religion thread -

Malor wrote:

Well, I don't think that's accurate, but once we set aside the (stupid) principle that marriage must be between a man and a woman, the eventual acceptance of polygamy, polyandry, and pretty much every other non-traditional family arrangement between consenting adults becomes inevitable. If it's okay for a marriage to be same-gender, why does it have to be a pair? As long as everyone involved is adult, and consents, who are we to tell them how they arrange their private lives?

I think the eventual acceptance of all those ideas is absolutely required for society to be consistent with itself. But that doesn't mean that it will ever extend to objects and animals, because they are not adult, and cannot consent. This principle of opposite-gender marriage being left behind means a fairly large transition must inevitably take place, but it won't be as profound as some of the anti-crowd claims.

Because, legally, this takes zero steps toward that. There is a legal difference between 2 and 3 adults. There is no measurable legal difference between two adults and two adults of a different gender arrangement. The problem here is the use of the word "inevitable", as if these concepts are inextricably linked to one another, but they don't resemble each other at all. It's what they don't resemble (a strict man/woman marriage arrangement) that suddenly makes them look similar. And in that case, you're still making the "slippery slope" argument for gay marriage leading to a man marrying his anime pillow wife.

Saying "well, we've allowed gay marriage, so now we're forced to consider these other options or be hypocrites" doesn't pan out like you think it does. The comparison just isn't there. Having two parents is markedly different than having three parents. Having one spouse is markedly different than having four. Does taking this step away from heterosexual marriage make people wonder about that next step? Sure. But that doesn't contradict what Hypatian mentioned in that thread -

Hypatian wrote:

The "slippery slope" fallacy is not in recognizing the existence of incremental change, but rather in suggesting that a small change makes a large change inevitable. On the other side, it would be a fallacy to suggest that a small change cannot possibly lead to a large one. The error is one of modality: confusing possibility with necessity.

To argue that "if we do a little X, it will inevitably lead to maximum X" (and therefore we should do no X at all) is to apply the slippery slope fallacy. To argue that "if we do a little X, we should be careful to think harder before doing more X later" is reasonable and logical.

The idea of gay marriage (or any concept of marriage) aside, the key part of the slippery slope argument is one of inevitability. And the reason why it's a fallacy is that it's often applied in terms where there just is no proof of such inevitability.

The other problem with the slippery slope is that it assumes that downstream actions are inevitable. Usually, though, each progressive step has a point at which it can be stopped and the slide halted, but that's not acknowledged when the slippery slope is invoked. It's just assumed that once the bad thing is done, every other step (no matter how many) will be blown through with no thought or hesitation all the way to an exaggerated disaster at the end.

Bloo Driver wrote:

From the Republicans discover that Islam is a religion thread -

Malor wrote:

Well, I don't think that's accurate, but once we set aside the (stupid) principle that marriage must be between a man and a woman, the eventual acceptance of polygamy, polyandry, and pretty much every other non-traditional family arrangement between consenting adults becomes inevitable. If it's okay for a marriage to be same-gender, why does it have to be a pair? As long as everyone involved is adult, and consents, who are we to tell them how they arrange their private lives?

I think the eventual acceptance of all those ideas is absolutely required for society to be consistent with itself. But that doesn't mean that it will ever extend to objects and animals, because they are not adult, and cannot consent. This principle of opposite-gender marriage being left behind means a fairly large transition must inevitably take place, but it won't be as profound as some of the anti-crowd claims.

Because, legally, this takes zero steps toward that. There is a legal difference between 2 and 3 adults. There is no measurable legal difference between two adults and two adults of a different gender arrangement. The problem here is the use of the word "inevitable", as if these concepts are inextricably linked to one another, but they don't resemble each other at all. It's what they don't resemble (a strict man/woman marriage arrangement) that suddenly makes them look similar. And in that case, you're still making the "slippery slope" argument for gay marriage leading to a man marrying his anime pillow wife.

Saying "well, we've allowed gay marriage, so now we're forced to consider these other options or be hypocrites" doesn't pan out like you think it does. The comparison just isn't there. Having two parents is markedly different than having three parents. Having one spouse is markedly different than having four. Does taking this step away from heterosexual marriage make people wonder about that next step? Sure. But that doesn't contradict what Hypatian mentioned in that thread -

In fact, we've had a whole thread on it: like I said there (basically along the same lines of what you are saying here), legalizing gay marriage is when the government cannot prevent you from entering into the marriage contract with a member of the same sex. Why? Just like they can't discriminate on the basis of religion or race, they can't discriminate on the basis of sex. Gay marriage gets us no closer in a legal sense to non-traditional family arrangements than interracial marriage or interfaith marriage did.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

The "slippery slope" fallacy is not in recognizing the existence of incremental change, but rather in suggesting that a small change makes a large change inevitable. On the other side, it would be a fallacy to suggest that a small change cannot possibly lead to a large one. The error is one of modality: confusing possibility with necessity.

To argue that "if we do a little X, it will inevitably lead to maximum X" (and therefore we should do no X at all) is to apply the slippery slope fallacy. To argue that "if we do a little X, we should be careful to think harder before doing more X later" is reasonable and logical.

The idea of gay marriage (or any concept of marriage) aside, the key part of the slippery slope argument is one of inevitability. And the reason why it's a fallacy is that it's often applied in terms where there just is no proof of such inevitability.

One thing to keep in mind is that the Constitution is often a slippery slope--if you do a little X, you might have to do maximum X because of equal protection or some other guarantee of rights. That's irrelevant in the case of gay marriage, but something to keep in mind.

So my wife and I finally got around to watching "8" on YouTube last night. It was excellent and we thoroughly enjoyed the viewing experience.

One question - I assume the testimony portrayed in the play is directly lifted from trial transcripts?

Nevin73 wrote:

So my wife and I finally got around to watching "8" on YouTube last night. It was excellent and we thoroughly enjoyed the viewing experience.

One question - I assume the testimony portrayed in the play is directly lifted from trial transcripts?

From transcripts from the trial, depositions, and interviews.

The pro-Prop. 8 forces filed their appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court today looking to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that Prop. 8 is a violation of the U.S. Constitution:

Supporters of California's constitutional amendment banning same-sex couples from marrying, Proposition 8, have asked the Supreme Court to hear the ongoing challenge to the law in order to reverse an appeals court decision from earlier this year that struck down the amendment as unconstitutional.

Specifically, they ask the court in a filing today to decide "Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman."

Wow. They're going to SCotUS? I kind of expected them to cut their losses and run.

I'm not shocked at all. If nothing else, they're running out the clock until they can't do anything else. The longer same-sex couples aren't able to marry in the most-populous state in the union the better, at least from their perspective.

Conan O'Brien introduces the new Chick-Fil-A mascot, Chaz the Intolerant Chicken:

Kind of NSFW, shall we say.

is it really offensive now to refer to gay people as gay people and not LGBTQ people? I was attacked by someone by not using the right terminology and promoting hate because I refer to gay people broadly when talking about marriage equality.

Ulairi wrote:

is it really offensive now to refer to gay people as gay people and not LGBTQ people? I was attacked by someone by not using the right terminology and promoting hate because I refer to gay people broadly when talking about marriage equality.

Nah, barring you saying something rude in the process, it just sounds like that person had a stick up their ass.

I've heard recently that the "in vogue" term is now queer. Didn't that used to be derogatory?

It used to be, but it's been undergoing the whole "reclaiming the word" thing. *shrug* Don't ask me, I'm over here trying to puzzle my way through a video game.

I usually say "those gays", just to see who laughs at how absurd it sounds and who nods in solidarity with my apparent annoyance.

But I think I've mentioned that before.