(06-30-2015, 06:30 AM)FireIceTalon Wrote: Then perhaps you should focus more on putting your "perspective" out there, than trying to personally discredit me or the framework which I operate within? Just a thought. And...
Because not a single person on this forum feels the need to lay out their entire socioeconomicpolitical outlook in order to discuss individual topics. I provide plenty of meat for conversation. Yours is the same old gnawed bone, in every thread. That's what I'm saying.
Quote:You calling anyone a crackpot is laughable at best, when you either refuse to (or cannot) come up with a reasoned argument to counter my points about queer couples under capitalist rule and how heteronormativity works as a sociological process within said system.
I'm a professional, and I meet crackpots at conferences sometimes. They come across like you do: completely convinced, needing no new input, and they have no time for you if you think they're wrong. They want to be either refuted (which they regard as impossible!) or they want you to accept that they're right. That's why I don't engage your points. It's why I don't try to convince nutters that they haven't proven P = NP. I just accept that they almost certainly haven't. I reserve the right to be unconvinced without necessarily having to provide a counterweight, especially with things like communism where historical implementation has been catastrophic.
Quote:I suspect it comes from an inability you have to think critically about sociological issues, and you are too concerned with trying to discredit the Marxist method as a way of getting at me, instead of discussing the issues themselves.
It's unwise to accuse someone of not being able to think critically in the same sentence where you demonstrate having misread them.
Quote:But at this point, I am not really interested anymore in possibly having a intellectual discussion with you on queer relationships and class rule,
That's fine. It's not what the thread was about in the first place.
A broader update on the crazy front, we have Texas and Alabama being the most pouty about having to formally recognize same-sex unions. Several other states are issuing stays on gay marriages until the 25 day appeals period has passed. It's so much childish posturing. Is it so much to ask that these people just admit "Okay, look, we knew we were doing something blatantly in violation of the 14th Amendment, but we REALLY JUST DIDN'T LIKE GAYS. We lost. We get it. We still don't like you people." ?
It's even shameful when politicians flip-flop the other way. Obama really should've come out and been honest saying, "I supported same-sex marriage this entire time, but for political reasons I felt it best to pretend I didn't until the tide of public opinion was safe. I apologize for being a diaper baby about this, but at least I have my big boy pants on now. But hey, you gays who supported me thinking I was on your side, you were right. Compare that to all of the people who supported Republican candidates for their anti-gay stance who are, at heart, not remotely anti-gay at all. It's just a non-issue for them."
I have basically no fear of churches that squick from homosexuality will be forced into performing same-sex unions, but holy crap so many of these states are making a big to-do about "WE WILL PROTECT THE POOR BIGOTED CHURCHES FROM THE GAYS THAT WISH TO WED THERE." Basically, to me it seems like one of those fears that could exist but in actuality won't, such as John Oliver's example of space bestiality. Even in Alabama, there are so many LGBT-friendly churches and faith communities that if you want a gay church wedding, it's not hard to find. Many churches here have performed same sex ceremonies for years (minus the legal oomph).
-Lem