Gays and the St Patricks Day Parade

[scottw]

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?

[Ian]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

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...

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Why not let three men get married, or twelve men? What's so magical about the number "two"?

Good question

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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"?

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

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

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

-spence

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Once again, you fail to separate behavior from being.

-spence

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....

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

It would be, and I don't think it would hurt anyone in the process.

If it would be easiest to accept everything, wouldn't that include it being easiest to accept a person's, Christian or otherwise, desire not to participate in someone else's personal "process"? And wouldn't it hurt that person, Christian or otherwise, if his process was not accepted and he was forced, instead, to subject himself to someone else's 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.

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?

[Ian]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

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.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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 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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

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?

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.