garfield Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 No irony there, huh? It was always a little too obvious. God help if Brasso sees it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincoln Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 It was always a little too obvious. God help if Brasso sees it. Maybe you can explain for other viewers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincoln Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) One of the most disappointing things about this thread is that it has made me more aware of the thoughts of other posters, and perhaps naively so, I had little clue just exactly how such a diverse activity still had participants who were so not in tune with what DCI has become (though they make attempts to rationalize opinions). DCI has come a long way. There is quite a journey to go. Edited March 27, 2015 by Lincoln 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 One of the most disappointing things about this thread is that it has made me more aware of the thoughts of other posters, and perhaps naively so, I had little clue just exactly how such a diverse activity still had participants who were so not in tune with what DCI has become (though they make attempts to rationalize opinions). DCI has come a long way. There is quite a journey to go. Well, try to be mindful that some of those participants probably feel, as it were, similar but opposite feelings: that the new law is needed to prevent so-called "progress" that is really an attempt to impose depravity on everyone else; i.e., they feel that caterers and florists shouldn't be forced to provide services to something as disgusting or sacrilegious as a gay wedding. For people who feel that way, it's unlikely that chiding them for being backwards or out of step will help. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Maybe you can explain for other viewers? Seriously, of all the drum corps, don't you think that Madison making a statement is a little obvious? I don't know the concentration of LGBT in the Madison Scouts, and I don't care. But, of all of the corps, I would suspect that they are the most reasonable to speak to the concern that this law would target the LGBT community. That's the point. Others want me to care. I DON'T CARE. And I have enough on my plate just promoting the activity without the extra baggage of having to make a political statement, too. Others want me to carry their torch. Sorry, but I like my drum corps loud, driving, emotional, and of the highest caliber. I don't care of the persuasion of the kid blowing the horn. And, frankly, I resent that the activity I've loved for 40 years is even involved in this, clearly, political battle just because some of the participants think it should be. We all have known of the percentage of LGBT community in drum corps and it has never been an issue. Not by me, and not by anyone I know. All of a sudden a group believes that the activity must make a stand when there is no evidence presented anywhere that the activity has been affected. He!!, even the Scouts said they've enjoyed a wonderful relationship with Indiana over many years. Why would they even consider that things would now be different? I know of no circumstances where one of their members, or members of any other corps, have experienced discrimination for being a widely-know significantly gay corps. What, in God's name, would the Scouts think would possibly change now? The true irony is that, to the extend that there is ANY discrimination against gay drum corps, they've place the target squarely on their own back. But, if you want me to take a stand, I will take it with the least-burdened. Period. That's the law. And please, don't hide behind "some" as a moniker. I've got thick skin and it's insulting. Call a spade a spade if it's worth it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) He!!, even the Scouts said they've enjoyed a wonderful relationship with Indiana over many years. Why would they even consider that things would now be different? I know of no circumstances where one of their members, or members of any other corps, have experienced discrimination for being a widely-know significantly gay corps. What, in God's name, would the Scouts think would possibly change now? The true irony is that, to the extend that there is ANY discrimination against gay drum corps, they've place the target squarely on their own back. I imagine the Scouts felt they had to make a statement because some of their staff and membership contacted them and said, "Indiana has just passed a law whose purpose is to discriminate against people like me." (That is, if the Scouts' leadership even had to be told that in the first place.) Edited March 27, 2015 by N.E. Brigand 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 One of the most disappointing things about this thread is that it has made me more aware of the thoughts of other posters, and perhaps naively so, I had little clue just exactly how such a diverse activity still had participants who were so not in tune with what DCI has become (though they make attempts to rationalize opinions). DCI has come a long way. There is quite a journey to go. So, if those revelations about the beliefs about other posters has changed your viewpoint of them based solely on that impression, who's being unfair? Ney, who's being biggoted? Because they don't take up your cause you can't like their drum corps viewpoint any more? I like DCI's pronouncement: We love everyone, especially those who make great marching music. DCI is not obligated to take up the cause, and your opinion of them shouldn't change either if they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincoln Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) So, if those revelations about the beliefs about other posters has changed your viewpoint of them based solely on that impression, who's being unfair? Ney, who's being biggoted? Because they don't take up your cause you can't like their drum corps viewpoint any more? I like DCI's pronouncement: We love everyone, especially those who make great marching music. DCI is not obligated to take up the cause, and your opinion of them shouldn't change either if they don't. Were you mentioned? Are you now the spokesperson for the names I didn't mention in my post? Edited March 27, 2015 by Lincoln Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) Have a question but will keep it On Topic by using DCI as an example: Corps members go to a business and are some are refused service because (something) because it goes against a business owners religious beliefs. How is the owner making a "political statement" by refusing service. How are people saying they disagree making a "political statement". If DCI says it doesn't like how its members were treated, how is that a "political statement"? All comes down to personal to me. So anyone want to say how they see it so high fallutin' that it is "political"? IMO it's ignoring (willfully or not) the human element. Edited March 27, 2015 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 So, if those revelations about the beliefs about other posters has changed your viewpoint of them based solely on that impression, who's being unfair? Hey, who's being bigoted? Because they don't take up your cause you can't like their drum corps viewpoint any more? I like DCI's pronouncement: We love everyone, especially those who make great marching music. DCI is not obligated to take up the cause, and your opinion of them shouldn't change either if they don't. Now I'll make an argument for understanding on the other side: If Indiana passed a law that seemed designed to allow discrimination against African Americans (for the purposes of this discussion, I have to set aside more than fifty years of legislation that would make such a move impossible), and some DCP posters people demanded that DCI take a stand, would they be unfair and bigoted to do so? Would it not be shocking if DCI, or other DCP posters for that matter, seemed to be unopposed to racial discrimination? If so in that case, why not in this one? That is to say: I believe, and most people opposing the new law believe, that sexual orientation is basically like race, an immutable part of human nature that should not be discriminated against. However, some people arguing that DCI and/or any given corps should make no statement--and I use "some" here because I don't know if that includes you or not, and we're all being very careful to try not to offend each other--don't believe that. They believe that sexual orientation is a choice, and possibly that homosexual orientation is an immoral choice (particularly if it's acted upon), and therefore that it can't be discriminated against (in any legal sense). If you're in the former camp, it's just simple human decency, not politics, to want DCI to do the right thing, i.e., stand up to bigotry. The problem is, not everyone agrees what the right thing is. DCI is caught in the middle. They don't want to lose fans who hold to either point of view. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts