LGBT in Progressive Rock

dennismoore wrote: Update: Just returned from diner after voting in my state's primary(I live in a Red State).  I only went to vote for one reason, to vote no on a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as man & woman.  This will open the door to all kinds of discrimination against people and permit companies to deny benefits in the future.  It also broadcasts to the USA that we are a bunch of bigoted zealots here and International or other US Companies need not relocate here as we are an intolerant and self-righteous, judgmental group.  Ignorance at its worst as this proposal hurts ALL the people in this state by the message of exclusion that it sends.  My wife, a recent US Citizen registered at the voting site so she could vote no as well. Although most Americans don't vote in the primaries we thought it was important, so we went and voted. No doubt the measures supporters wanted it this May ballot for the low turnout. So that is 2 votes no on this dreadful & misguided proposal. Bad news is that the proposal is winning now, 57% to 43%. Looks like it will pass for sure.  We have a long way to go as humans I say, a long way still.  Just my $.02

Ah, so you live in NC as well?

I think your indignation is a tad misplaced, and your use of the term "ignorance" is rather ironic.  The problem is not (in this context) being against gay marriage.  Lots of people are.  Fine.  The problem here (in this context) is this: Most people who voted had no idea what the amendment was all about.  Gay marriage is already not recognized or legal in NC.  How many people who voted either way actually read and understood the full proposal?  Did you?

In my opinion, the proposal was poorly worded, and frankly, a lot of folks just go by the media's interpretation of something.  If anything, it shows that NC's population is easy manipulated and that they don't know how to look up anything for themselves.  I work with teachers who have expressed falsehoods about this very amendment, and I think, "No wonder out students can't think for themselves."

I am, in case you don't know, personally against homosexuality, but I would never vote for legislation making such partnerships illegal.  As a Libertarian, I refuse to force my values onto anyone via the legislature.  As a Christian, I'm not interested in making anyone a heterosexual anyway: Jesus didn't say, "Go therefore into all nations and make gay people straight," after all...


Edited by Epignosis - May 10 2012 at 22:53

James LaBrie is gay, Steven Wilson too. So there you are, gay bands. =P 

^Queen have never been 'gay', they had completely different stylistics. Even when Mercury was bi, it didn't inflected his music or music of Queen.

Update:

Just returned from diner after voting in my state's primary(I live in a Red State).  I only went to vote for one reason, to vote no on a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as man & woman.  This will open the door to all kinds of discrimination against people and permit companies to deny benefits in the future. 

It also broadcasts to the USA that we are a bunch of bigoted zealots here and International or other US Companies
need not relocate here as we are an intolerant and self-righteous, judgmental group.  Ignorance at its worst as this proposal hurts ALL the people in this state by the message of exclusion that it sends. 

My wife, a recent US Citizen registered at the voting site so she could vote no as well.

Although most Americans don't vote in the primaries we thought it was important, so we went and voted.
No doubt the measures supporters wanted it this May ballot for the low turnout.

So that is 2 votes no on this dreadful & misguided proposal.

Bad news is that the proposal is winning now, 57% to 43%. Looks like it will pass for sure.  We have a long way to go as humans I say, a long way still. 

Just my $.02

dennismoore wrote: HolyMoly wrote: dennismoore wrote: HolyMoly wrote: There's a stock image of me floating around the Googlesphere, once when I made a really goofy face for the camera.  If you Google "rat face" you'll see it.  Kinda nice to be a "celebrity" like that, edit: I just looked for it and it seems to be gone now.  I think I had it removed and I forgot.  Whew.     WTF???   You know you can't do that!  Tell us about this great picture, then tell us we can't see it.   Please do post that wonderful picture here...   Its the right thing to do! Wrong. It is the Wrong thing to do.   Ok, I didn't want to do this but you have given me no choice.  From your prior post I did google "rat face" and I found some truly disturbing images...  If you don't wanna post the real photo I can supply another and attribute it to you.   Your choice, of course.   Hmm, I do believe this is the first time I have ever tried to blackmail anybody, it feels kinda cool!

Did I say "rat face"?  So sorry, I meant "George Clooney", that was a typo.


Edited by HolyMoly - March 30 2012 at 09:26

dennismoore wrote: HolyMoly wrote: There's a stock image of me floating around the Googlesphere, once when I made a really goofy face for the camera.  If you Google "rat face" you'll see it.  Kinda nice to be a "celebrity" like that, edit: I just looked for it and it seems to be gone now.  I think I had it removed and I forgot.  Whew.     WTF???   You know you can't do that!  Tell us about this great picture, then tell us we can't see it.   Please do post that wonderful picture here...   Its the right thing to do!

Wrong. It is the Wrong thing to do.

dennismoore wrote: Harry Hood wrote: dennismoore wrote: True story now, you really freaked out my better half when she saw your avatar photo.  I love Marillion & Transatlantic, can you share the story of that less than photogenic picture of Pete T.? It actually came up in a google image search for "Neal Morse". I think it's just a random fan photo that he wasn't really prepared for. I usually use awkward photos as my avatar (before it was David Tennant).   Cool, thanks for explaining!   I used to wonder why Jon Anderson was so picky about when he was photographed, but after seeing your picture of Pete T. I can see why!

There's a stock image of me floating around the Googlesphere, once when I made a really goofy face for the camera.  If you Google "rat face" you'll see it.  Kinda nice to be a "celebrity" like that, but I always hoped it would be for other reasons. 

edit: I just looked for it and it seems to be gone now.  I think I had it removed and I forgot.  Whew.


Edited by HolyMoly - March 30 2012 at 08:36

Now we're all going to be wondering if that fey garbling in Sigur Ros is actually about KY and moustachioed men in speedos.

CPicard wrote: ^This picture would be more efficient with two metalheads hugging each other, one with a Dream Theater shirt, another with an Entombed shirt. Just sayin'.

Deathrabbit wrote: Man Overboard wrote: My point is that this topic is packed with attempts to derail the very topic itself. I'm disturbed that even the TC himself seems to think this topic is beyond repair--I could probably name more posters in this thread who legitimately care about the issue than there are out prog musicians--and it's really just a reflection of the marginalization that we face in society as a whole by the heteronormative masses. So, I really do think a different, more mature thread, with some groundrules of decency should be established in lieu of this one. Perhaps the next thread could be authored by someone with a bit more understanding and reverence of LGBT issues so it can turn into something other than a hotbed of homophobic ha-has. The topic is still an important one, and it still bears discussion. Have fun with your troll thread, I guess. The OP here is a very dear person who cares deeply about all people in all walks of life, from what I can tell from my interactions with him. I will brook no unjust insults to his character. It's very bizarre to me that he can create a topic in support and celebration of a "marginalized" (I really hate these clinical terms, we are talking about people after all) group and get slammed because he doesn't care enough in certain people's eyes. It's extreme rehashing of the classic "If you're not for me, you're against me." Instead, it has become, "if you are not supporting me with all your heart, mind, and soul with your every drawing breath, then you are against me". It's people like you who continually set LGBT rights backward. By creating such a unilateral world, you essentially cast everyone into the role of an enemy. Honestly, if your goal is to persuade people, how on earth do you think you will achieve that end by alienating everyone who could be a potential ally. If someone was truly on the fence about LGBT rights, and they read this thread with the mindset it would be the deciding factor (which is pretty ridiculous), do you honestly think your conduct here would draw them to your side? Furthermore, you bring insult to your own marginalized group. As if, members of the LGBT community are weak as a whole and they need a golden crusader to defend them because they can't take care of themselves. You sicken me.