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

Spence is right Jim, but it's understandable that you probably aren't as intellectually evolved as Spence and therefore struggle with the separations of who we are and how we behave and the nuances of deciphering being from behavior and behavior from being...here's a good example...this guy/girl needs Spence as his lawyer....:rotf2:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/transge...ry?id=22959423

Does it point out a "blueprint which has been followed" or simply present a very prescient and well thought out theory?

Has is created a "new reality" or perhaps instead simply normalized reality?

The book was written in a post AIDS environment when the issues were more in your face (i.e. the era Jim is still stuck in). Today for the most part you don't need to be told someone is "here" and "queer" because most people just don't care.

Now that's something to celebrate in a parade.

-spence

unless there is a mutually accepted definition of "reality"..."normal"....then....re-read Detbuch's point above...otherwise "reality" could mean anything to anyone...like the triple murder tranny

I'm pretty sure they already have those(parades)

c'mon Spence...define "reality" and "normal" as you see it....instead of just engaging in random lecturing

"normalized reality"...sounds like "pretending" based on opinion..."normalizing reality" requires lots of spinning I think and sounds a bit backward...

No, you've just spun it around so you're looking at the other side.

Gay people have been intermingled with us all for ever. The only difference today is that they don't have to hide as much. The changes we've seen -- in the past few decades primarily -- haven't been moving society towards homosexuality, rather they've been bringing gays closer to normal society. Legal rights, entering into long-term commitments, raising children, comfort with your individuality...these are all things I consider pretty normal.

-spence

Most people, at heart, really didn't care before all the "in your face" and government coercion stuff. There were open and harsh bigots, but most people just didn't want to be bothered with the issue. Homosexuals have always been part of society and have succeeded well without flaunting their preference. Why is the flaunting something to celebrate?

no spinning and this completely evades the question and it is now you who fails to "separate behavior from being"....this is a list of pursuits(behavior)...normal pursuits by most estimations I imagine and I don't think anyone here has suggested that anyone be denied any of these ... but it doesn't answer the question that was asked which was to define "reality" and "normal" as you see it and were using it with regard to sexual "being" or "gender options", maybe from the list of 58 ....your "normalized reality" would include ...or possibly exclude what/which? ..in terms of being "normal" at least in our new "normalized reality"....