Of course you have a point there. My point is, under this administration, there are plenty of examples of Christians being asked to abandon their beliefs (which is blatantly unconstitutional) to advance the agenda of the current administration. This is a bit off-topic, but I'm confident that I'm correct.

In this case, if heterosexuals and homosexuals were both asked to do the same exact thing (no proclamations of sexuality for 2 hours), that cannot be considered to be discriminatory. By definition, 'discrimination' is singling out one group for different treatment. No one can say that is happening here.

If one group is not inclined to consent, then fortunately for them, they have the right to stay home. No one is forcing them to participate in a St Patricks Day parade.

We live in a pluralistic society, and like it or not, it requires a certain degree of assimilation at times. We all have to try and fit in a bit. We can't always get our way, all of the time, in every situation. Most of us learn this by the time we are 6 or 7 years old. In my opinion, this patricular group, is struggling lately with the notion that others have the right to pursue their vision of happiness as well.

Banning gays from the parade would be one thing. Asking them to leave their sexuality aside for 2 hours is not nearly the same thing, despite Spence's desperate attempts to paint it that way.

The politicians don't march because they have no balls. They lack of moral standard.
It's the same reason the GOP allows Obama to get away with everything. Because he's black they are afraid of being called racist.
When we have a truly colorblind and sexually orientated blind society none of that will matter.
It seems that people that make the issue the most about race and sexual orientation are liberals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think this is accurate Jim...the agenda from the militant activists(sounds scary) is to force society to submit to the idea(maybe it's a theory) that men having sex with other men, marrying and perhaps raising children and women having sex with other women,... marrying and perhaps raising children (not to mention the many possible combinations once you get to bi, tri and whatever comes after that) is the same or "equal to" men and women having sex, marrying and perhaps raising children ....I think the science is settled on this one :)...I think it's widely understood and yes, accepted, that many people are gay or have some other sexual preference different than that which nature's laws have laid out, some of which are increasingly accepted and others more or less to varying degrees and some are found unacceptable(for now), didn't Google or Facebook recently come out with 50 different ways to identify your sexual being recently? seems like a lot, must require a REALLY open mind.. If the parade, and all of society for that matter, is to be truly tolerant of an individual's sexual orientation, shouldn't they(parade organizers) and we(society) be forced to accept and deem equal ALL sexual orientations and not just the most vocal few militant activists, in the interest of fairness?....everyone deserves a float:uhuh: it would be a helluva parade!

also, the constant attempt to frame this as a Gays versus Christians argument is really weak.....there are many gay Christians, there are many non-Christians that do not support gay marriage, there are many gays that don't support gay marriage, there are many Christians that support gay marriage and there are many very left-leaning "tolerant" states where gay marriage can not pass a referendum by the voters

"there's a reason so many politicians and sponsors don't want to be associated with the parade, because they're in the wrong"

And one of the reasons is that they don't want to have to defend themselves against baseless accusations of intolerance, from the likes of you. That's precisely why you incessantly make these claims when losing an argument, in the hopes that it will shut some people up. It works, especially in the case of people seeking to win elections. That it doesn't have a shred of intellectual honesty, doesn't mean it's not effective.

"Your position is quite hypocritical."

It's not the least hypocritical. It would be hypocritical if I supported the right of heterosexual vets to march as such, but not homosexual vets.

Spence, I have asked this several times, and you keep dodging. I'll do it one more time, and I'll try to go slowly.

If everyone (not just homosexuals) is being asked to set aside sexual identity for an afternoon, how can that be considered to be discriminatory? If every group is being treated exactly the same, where is the discrimination?

You have fun trying to answer that. Hint..., screaming "HATE CRIME!" isn't really answering the question that I asked.

Here, I'll make it asy for you, all you need to do is fill in the blank.

"In this case, homosexuals and heterosexuals are being treated identically. All are welcome to march, and all are asked to leave sexuality out of it. I, Spence, think that's discriminatory because ______________".

"the constant attempt to frame this as a Gays versus Christians argument is really weak"

Tell that to the Christians being sued by gays, simply for being Christian. I don't see any cases of Christians suing gays for being gay.

Asking for acceptance and tolerance is one thing. Asking that everyone else abandon everything they hold dear, every time it conflicts with your own pursuits, is a bit different.

Nothing is ever that simple or consistent. But from where I sit, I don't see a lot of tolerance coming the the most vocal advocates of this group. I don't see them asking for basic acceptance, I see demands that we cater to every whim out of fear of being labeled a homophobe. And I see very little willingness for them to acquiesce to the beliefs of others.

It's a difficult situation, I have no answers. I just don't like being called a hate-monger for seeing both sides.

Why do you think that rule exists in the first place? To keep the annoying heterosexuals from flaunting their pride?

I'm not familiar with this... any external references?

Why are Congressmen allowed to march with banners saying they are congressmen? Why don't they just march with some other group?

When you pick and choose the associations you allow to be displayed in your parade and those choices match an increasingly unpopular side of a hot button human rights issue, whether intentionally or not, you are inviting criticism.

If you looked back on the civil rights movements from the 60's I'm sure you could find a truck load of direct-line comparisons to race in public displays during that time. At the time they probably used the exact same defense, and nowadays history remembers those people as racists.

The civil rights movements in the 1960's were about human rights. Not the unalienable rights to be black. No one was denying them the right to be black. What they wanted, initially, were the unalienable rights with which humans are endowed. Mostly those individual unalienable rights to free association, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to possess property. And, as well, the prescribed right of equality before the law.

They weren't interested in joining other than racially defined parades by touting their blackness. If a parade didn't appeal to their values, there was no need to participate. They wanted to enjoy participation in their own parades which celebrated their own culture insofar as that was distinctive from the rest of society. And to join in other parades which celebrated similar values to their own.

Government was not used to promote, initially, specific "black" rights, but to promote equal rights.

A lot of that has changed. There are now set asides, entitlements, and privileges which are targeted to specific groups. This has fostered the notion that government can be used to do so. And this is used as leverage for various groups to get specific treatment at the expense of other groups.

This was accomplished by first blurring the lines of distinction through the rhetoric of equality and fairness. The old unalienable rights were possessed by individuals. Equality in the old system was merely before the law and "fairness" was trumped by individual ability. Unalienable rights stood in the way of "fairness" and equality of outcome. Unalienable rights had to be dissolved and replaced by prescribed rights. Those rights which government prescribed and granted. Only then could true "equality" and fairness be achieved. The lines of distinction were not only to be blurred, but to be obliterated. The great divisive distinctions in gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, etc., etc., would be of little to no importance and replaced with equality. And the great division in wealth would be ameliorated, eventually to be erased. Again, true equality and fairness would be achieved.

Of course, those goals are still a work in progress. That there are actually even greater distinctions of wealth now--but that is only in the top 1%--is merely a bump in the road (even though this has always existed in top down authoritarian systems). And, also, the distinctions among us are even more delineated now, but that is merely because groups have been given a voice to demand. Those who were victims of racism are now the most vocal racists. Those who were gender or sexuality oppressed are now the most vocal and active sexual agenda activists. And we can surely see how that is right and necessary--eventually, we will all be the same and those voices will no longer be necessary.

This all became possible through the centralization of power to the Federal Government at the expense of the power once inherent in the States and the People. And much was done exactly in order to transfer that power. And the rationale for that transformation is to eliminate those problems that were fostered by the supposedly fuzzy notions of unalienable rights, and create a far more supposedly efficient system of governance. Individual "rights" beyond the reach of government is a by-gone nostrum of outdated enlightenment era thinking. The only way to effective "rights" is to define and prescribe them by those experts who have gone beyond a sort of organic "enlightenment" and have been progressively educated in the solution and administration of human needs.

But why is that? Why is it easy for one group to avoid public proclamations about their sexuality, and one group struggles with that? Lots of heteresexuals identify pretty closely with being heterosexual, right? Yet, i didn't hear any of them complain about not being able to flaunt their heterosexuality during the parade.

There are currebtly some high-profile cases of Christian bakers, photographers, etc being sued by gays, because they didn't want to provide their services at a gay wedding, for religious purposes. You can google it, if you can't find one, i can find it for you, I'm not making it up.

"Why are Congressmen allowed to march " For the same reason that vets are allowed to march...because that has nohting to do with sexuality. The fact that congressman can march, would only support your argument, if only heterosexual congressmen were allowed to march, and no one has made that claim.

As far as I can tell, anyone could march, they just wanted to leave sexuality out of it. A small, vocal minority took issue with that, and that's tough cookies for them. I can't park in a handicapped spot just because I like parking close to a building, we all have rules to follow sometimes, and sometimes that means having to set convenience aside.

"When you pick and choose the associations you allow to be displayed "

All associations were allowed to be displayed, as long as they weren't sexual in nature. That cannot be considered discriminatorynot as long as everyone was asked to put sexuality aside. Try as you might, and you are asking tough questions in a respectful way, you cannot make that wrong.

Not even close. During the time of segregation, blacks were treated differently (different schools, tables at restaurants, seats on the bus, water fountains, etc). That is clearly discriminatory. In this case, from a sexual perspective, everyone was being treated exactly the same.

Some parents, myself included, like to be able to take a 6 year-old to a parade without any references to sexuality. I don't see why that's so much to ask. If someone wants to read "Heather Has Two Mommies" to their 6 year-old, that's their right. That doesn't mean I want to hear it read every single time I take my kids to the library. Do we need to have a reading of that book played over the loudspeakers, 24 hours a day, at the library? Or is it OK, once in a while, if sexuality can be left out of the equation.

You're looking for something sinister here, and it's not there. Gays were perfectly welcome to march, as long as they followed the same exact guidelines that heterosexuals were asked to follow. Despite what Spence thinks, saying "no" to a group of homosexuals, doesn't necessarily make you a hatemonger. And that's what is at play here, we have a group of people who simply don't want to hear the word "no". When my kids act like that, we call them spoiled brats. But we can't chastise homosexuals like that, because once a group has been anointed with "victim" status by the left, then from that point on, nothing is ever their fault, and anyone who criticizes them is a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, an Islamophob, a bigot, or some other kind of hatemonger.

Were they forced to use different photographers and bakers?

OK. So I assume you are saying that if a Christian photographer doesn't want to attend a gay wedding for religious beliefs, he is no better than a segregationist. If that's what you are suggesting, just say it. Why mince words?

Does it matter to you that the constitution explicitly states that people have the right to exercise their religious beliefs? And that the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted that to mean that the government can't favor any one religion, nor can they denounce any one religion?

Constitution, shmonstitution, as long as we are fashionable and politically correct.

Many people, not you I guess, get nervous when the President is so comfortable with rejecting the parts of the constitution that he doesn't happen to like.

Like Spence, you cannot tell me what's discriminatory with treating everyone exactly the same, so when you have nohting left at all, cry racism. Very original.

If the government can force a Christian photographer to attend a gay wedding, then I presume you would be OK with a law saying that black painters cannot refuse to accommodate a customer who wants to paint a confederate flag on the roof of their house. Aftre all, what's the difference there? Last time I checked, "the South" is not characterized as a hate group. Would you, or would you not, allow a black painter to refuse such a request? And if you would allow him to refuse, please tell me why the Christian photographer doesn't have the same right. And good luck with that.

"Forced" is a peculiar word to use in this context. The photographers and bakers didn't "force" them to use different ones. If there was any "force" in making the gay's decision, it was internally applied. The gays "forced" themselves to act in whatever way they acted. Nobody else "forced" them to do so.

Correct. Given that there are plenty of photographers who would happily accept, it seems like the "tolerant" thing would have been for the happy couple to say "well, the constitution protects you from being forced to abandon your religious beliefs, so in keeping with the liberal notion of tolerance, I will tolerate your religious beliefs and find another photographer."

What they actually said and did, is something else. Because it'snot about tolerance, it's about doing excatly as they please, exactly when they please, and demonizing anyone who doesn't agree.

I was simply pointing out the similarities in each type of discrimination. I think if you asked the photographers and bakers if they were discriminating based on sexual orientation, they would admit it.

I think anyone who wants to practice their own religious beliefs is more than welcome and that right is protected under the Constitution. Where my personal views (and those of others as well apparently) differ from yours is when those beliefs tread on the civil liberties of others. I think the civil rights movement meant something, and I don't see a difference between discrimination based on the color of one's skin and the sex of the person they choose to love.

I think you missed the part where I explained where, exactly, the discrimination with this particular issue (Southie Parade) lies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think you and Jim are disagreeing about not treading on civil rights. The problem, which I described in about 10 posts above this is when civil rights conflict. It is true that people have unalienable rights to love who they wish. But they do not have an unalienable right to demand that someone else participate in or facilitate their right to love. They only have the right not to be interfered in their right to love. And in the case of the photographers, bakers, and gays disputes, the photographers not only have unalienable rights to practice their religion when it doesn't interfere with the right of the gays to love who they wish, but their right is specifically encoded in the Constitution. Anti-discrimination rights, for the most part, actually deny one of the parties their right of association, speech, or religion. As such they are rights prescribed by government, and insofar as they force one party to lose their right in favor of the other party, they are not unalienable rights.

The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's were, as I've stated, not about blacks having the right to be black. It was about establishing the unalienable rights of blacks such as freedom of speech, of religion, of association, of owning property, as well as the constitutionally guaranteed right to equality before the law. But they were not about abrogating others those same rights. It was not about guaranteeing blacks the right to impose their point of view in parades whose purpose is something else.

you missed my point, I'm aware of all of those cases, just making the observation that this argument is always framed as Christians(values) vs Gays(rights) (Christians being "told" by their religion to think the way that they do and Gays being the innocent victims of deluded Christian beliefs)...it's hardly the case but an easy perspective to digest especially for the (pot & gay marriage lobby)..there's a good joke there somewhere...

ouch.."the religion of peace"...WIKI

Islam's Views

Islamic Shari'ah law is extracted from both the Qur'an and Muhammad's Sunnah (found in the Hadith and Sira). Islamic jurisprudence are expansion of the laws contained within them by Islamic jurists. Therefore, they are seen as the laws of Allah. You need only look to the rulings under Shari'ah to see the accepted mainstream interpretation of Islam and its commandments to its followers. Homosexuality under this law, is not only a sin, but a punishable crime against God.

In the case of homosexuality, how it is dealt with differs between the four mainline schools of Sunni jurisprudence today, but what they all agree upon is that homosexuality is worthy of a severe penalty.
In the Hanafi school of thought, the homosexual is first punished through harsh beating, and if he/she repeats the act, the death penalty is to be applied.

As for the Shafi`i school of thought, the homosexual receives the same punishment as adultery (if he/she is married) or fornication (if not married). This means, that if the homosexual is married, he/she is stoned to death, while if single, he/she is whipped 100 times. Hence, the Shafi`i compares the punishment applied in the case of homosexuality with that of adultery and fornication.

The Hanafi differentiates between the two acts because in homosexuality, anal sex [something that is prohibited, regardless of orientation] may also be involved, while in adultery [and fornication], the penis/vagina (which are reproductive parts) are involved.
Some scholars, based on the Qur'an and various ahadith, hold the opinion that the homosexual should be thrown from a high building or stoned to death[1] as a punishment for their crime, but other scholars maintain that they should be imprisoned until death. [2]

Another view is that between two males, the active partner is to be lashed a hundred times if he is unmarried, and killed if he is married; whereas the passive partner is to be killed regardless of his marital status.[3]

since Spence has declared the next couple of election cycles to be about pot and gay marriage i guess i'm out, as care less and less about either with each passing day...i'll do what the president is doing and focus on college basketball, bad humor and my next vacation rather than these and other important issues in the world...

I do think that if we're to legalize pot and make permanent gay marriage throughout the land it would be highly discriminatory to not make legal all drugs and not be accepting and accommodating of all sexual orientations....I'm not a pot guy necessarily...it always put me to sleep...but mushrooms and opium sound like fun and I don't see what's so wrong with those...and since the gay lobby includes LGBT under the umbrella it would be wrong to leave anyone out...the bi's should be able to marry one of each...shouldn't they? or as many as required to achieve happiness.....the trans.....well, i'm going to get more confused as we work through the 50 ways to describe your sexual being but it would be easiest to just accept everything....give everyone a float..and their favorite drug...take the gender signs off the bathroom doors at the middle schools so the little girls won't complain that there's a little boy peeing in their bathroom, they'll get used to it.....life would be so much easier:)...I don't want to discriminate against anyone and I don't want to force anyone to do something that they don't want to do.....shouldn't be hard to reconcile...right?

Friendly fire took his life
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I think the civil rights movement meant something"

Everyone agrees with that. Are you implying that Christians don't think the civil rights act meant something? That would be an interesting opinion, since it was the Christian right that led the fight against segregation.

"I don't see a difference between discrimination based on the color of one's skin and the sex of the person they choose to love. "

Here's the difference. Segregationists didn't like black people. They didn't like the people. It didn't matter what blacks did, they were hated by segregationists.

That's not anywhere near the same as a Christian photographer not wanting to attend a gay wedding. Christians don't frown upon homosexuals as people, meaning that Christians don't wish any harm to homosexuals. Some Christians do not condone the act of sodomy.

In thi scase, it's not the person that the Christian objects to, it's the act. Apples and oranges.

The freedoms that our Constitution guarantees, are not only applicable when it's convenient.

Freedom of speech means that an artist can hang a picture of Jesus covered in feces. I don't like that picture, but I recognize the right of the guy to paint it.

Freedom of the press means the Ed Schultz has the right to go on TV and call Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut". I don't like the guy, but I recognize his right to say what he wants.

Freedom of assembly means that the Westboro Baptist Church can say disgusting things at a military funeral. I hate those people, but I recognize their right to gather as they wish.

And like it or not, a Christian photographer has the right not to participate in that which violates his religious beliefs.

If we want to change that, fortunately there are mechanisms to amend the Constitution. But we don't get to ignoree the parts of it that we don't happen to like at the present time.

I don't agree with the Christian photographer. But I don't want his constitutionally-protected freedoms trampled upon, in the name of political corrrectness.

It would be, and I don't think it would hurt anyone in the process. If someone decides to love someone, and that makes them happy.... then who the hell cares? People live with enough misery and stress from a bunch of other stuff in this world, if they can find happiness and comfort in a relationship with someone other than a member of the opposite sex, I fully support it.

But Scott said we should accept everything.

The tradiitonal definition of marriage is 2 people of opposite sex. The notion of gay marriage supposes that there is no reason to limit the definition to "of opposite sex". If you believe that, then why would you limit it two "two"? Why not let three men get married, or twelve men? What's so magical about the number "two"?

I heard someone say once, "to believe in everything, is to believe in nothing". There is some logic to this.

This is complicated stuff...

Do you fully support some, if it makes them happy, to reject being a part of somebody else's happiness, and not being forced or coerced to participate? Do you fully support ALL who wish to be happy in their own way so long as it doesn't prevent other's their choice? Do you have that "who the hell cares?" perspective in all cases, or just in those that fit a view which makes YOU happy?

Good question

Slippery slope, but I believe business is different. I don't support a business's right to discriminate based on the personal preferences of their patrons when those personal preferences are not criminal.

It is interesting how we treat "business." If it suits our argument, we view business as a living, breathing entity having human attributes(similar to how progressives view the Constitution), and therefor must be beholden to the same strictures as individual human beings. But when we punish business for transgressing human values we personally hold sacred, or legally we deem criminal, we don't put "business" in jail, we incarcerate specific, actual, human beings.

It is convenient to centralize individual human "rights" into a general category of business "rights," and, so, overlook any individual rights that actual humans possess when they interface with other actual humans and their individual rights when they are engaged in "business." Notwithstanding that all human interaction is a form of "business." So, is it only in those "business" interactions which involve a transfer of money that actual humans must relinquish their personal rights?

What is the magical distinction that allows us to have individual unalienable rights so long as no money is involved? Do you believe we do, as individuals, have unalienable rights? Or that we have only those rights which the government allows us to have?

Is it not a "slippery slope" when we begin to say you have unalienable rights . . . except . . . ?

And if we do actually have individual unalienable rights, even when those are actually specified in the Constitution, and when the practice of those rights don't deny others the practice of theirs, must we subject ours to theirs if they offer money for our services? Are we not allowed to say, no thanks.

Getting a little far off the topic of a group of people being able to express themselves at a public event here...

But the issue as I see it is that people are trying to use religion to support a discriminatory attitude towards a group of people in our society. If we allow "religions freedom" to be an excuse to discriminate beyond the letter of the law and justify that with the first amendment, what is to stop someone from establishing a religion for any kind of discrimination they feel they should be free to support?

I don't understand this . The people that took out the permit have the right to call the shots on how their parade is run. They banned the signs not the participants . Anyone could enjoy the festivities . Period !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The problem in most discussions like these is when they have no common basic principle on which the discussion revolves, or is about. "But the issue as I see it" creates unfocussed discussion which cannot be resolved when arguers "see it" differently. Having no unifying principles on which all agree leaves all to expound on and adhere to their personal vision. There can be no agreement, and the discussion goes round and round, eventually saying the same things over and over . . . ad infinitum . . . pointlessly. There is no point on which agreement can be reached, there is only personal opinion.

Your opinion ("as I see it)" is that people are using religion to support discriminatory attitude. The people who are religious "see it" differently. They "see it" as acting in accordance to their religion, even when their own personal feeling and their business profit would make them act differently. How can there be a discussion between such parties, much less a resolution? I don't know why you must see it that way, perhaps because you "see" religion as a fraud and those who practice it as frauds who don't actually believe but just use religion as an excuse to practice things you don't agree with. It would be simpler to believe they are actually sincere. But we humans are often suspicious of the simplest explanation--sometimes with good reason.

But the confusion in argument that occurs between irreconcilable points of view is exacerbated to the extreme when even the true fundamentals that should underlie the discussion are contorted out of all recognition. What is this notion of allowing religious freedom to be an "excuse to discriminate beyond the letter of the law" and justifying that with the First Amendment? Religious freedom in the First amendment IS the letter of the law. It is not an excuse to discriminate beyond its own letter. It is the letter. And religion can establish any kind of "discrimination" it wishes--so long as the practice of it doesn't deny others their unalienable rights. The First amendment is, among other things, not a prescription of how religious people are allowed to act, but a protection against others denying their right to act so long as there is mutual protection before the law.

If the Bakers or Photographers forced the gays not to be gay, or to join their religion, or denied the gays their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or their first amendment rights, the letter of the law would stop them from doing so. By the same token, the letter of the law should deny the gays from compelling to do what is against the bakers' or photographers' conscience. But when government creates laws, which themselves break that original letter of the law by allowing one to impose his "rights" on another against his rights, then the law is broken. Then you have rule by men, not rule of law. Then law becomes opinion. Then law becomes "how I see it" by judges and legislators. And then what's to stop legislators and judges, no longer constrained by constitutional principles, from establishing laws that discriminate against what YOU hold dear.

I would think that, if you truly understood the fundamental principle of the First Amendment, I would think that unprincipled "how I see it" formation of law would be more of a threat to you than some religion, bound by constitutional PRINCIPLES, establishing internal discriminations. I would think that would be the "slippery slope" that you would fear.

So what you are saying, is that if someone can claim that their feelings are hurt, then the constitution doesn't apply to the person causing the hurt feelings? It cannot work that way. THAT is a slippery slope.

Using your logic, going back to my example, a black photographer would have to legal basis for refusing to work at a Klan rally. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If it's perfectly legal for the Klan to hold a rally, then according to your logic, a black photographer would be forced by law to work there.

Man... I didn't see it that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think, these days it's been shown that we can just have the president issue waivers to certain people that he doesn't think should be affected by certain laws, that would resolve this situation and depending on how the president felt about other situations and certain parts of certain laws and how certain judges interpret or feel about certain laws for certain people he can just issue waivers as he deems necessary..:uhuh::love:

How can you claim to not see it that way? Here's what you said, your words...

"I believe business is different. I don't support a business's right to discriminate based on the personal preferences of their patrons when those personal preferences are not criminal."

Pretend the business is a black photographer. The patron is a Klansmen who, despite his offensive beliefs, isn't breaking any laws.

So how can the black photographer say 'no' to the Klansmen, based on your words that I posted?

You can't have it both ways...If the Christian photographer cannot say 'no' to a gay wedding, then the black photographer cannot say 'no' to the Klansmean.

I think Detbuch explained this for you as succinctly as could be done just a couple of posts previous...

"The problem in most discussions like these is when they have no common basic principle on which the discussion revolves, or is about. "But the issue as I see it" creates unfocussed discussion which cannot be resolved when arguers "see it" differently. Having no unifying principles on which all agree leaves all to expound on and adhere to their personal vision. There can be no agreement, and the discussion goes round and round, eventually saying the same things over and over . . . ad infinitum . . . pointlessly. There is no point on which agreement can be reached, there is only personal opinion."

this is a very interesting read (apologies to Spence for "cutting and pasting" the link)
http://www.americanthinker.com/asset...014_15_41.html

Interesting indeed. Really points out the blueprint which has been followed to create a new "reality."

It's a beautiful article. Beautiful to me because it rings of truth, not agenda. And truth is the soul of knowledge, whereas agenda is more often the kernel of deception. And, as Keats wrote in his "Ode on a Grecian Urn," "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Where it really started to get "beautiful" for me is when somewhere about third to halfway into the essay the author says "We gays and Lesbians"--until that I had assumed, since it was what sounded to me up to that point like another discourse against a homosexual agenda, that the author was straight. I wasn't sure, at that point, if he was really referring to himself, but toward the end he verifies it.

It is always a beautiful experience for me when in a discussion with someone of a different race or "sexual persuasion", or a believer in some religion, or someone of a particular ethnic persuasion, the concept of individual freedom in a political or governmental sense is agreed to in a fundamental sense which transcends personal differences. Then there is a foundation for agreement. And that is a beautiful thing.

When there is no unifying principle around which we can discuss, then there is no possibility of agreement. Without a common foundation, we are afloat in a sea of disagreement, and susceptible to the suasions of tyrants who promise to override our differences with the power of the State rather than we self governing ourselves with the common purpose that we respect our differences.

The article is a beautiful, truthful thing in that it transcends a wedge agenda and appeals to rational discourse. But too bad you had to cut and paste it--according to Spence that just relegates it to being a rag, demolishes it into a yawn.

This is usually the line of thinking that ends up with people screwing sheep.

I've never heard in my life a gay person advocate for polygamy.

Once again, you fail to separate behavior from being.

-spence

Never been to P-town to the Ace of Spades Club, hav ya?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device