can add that "Dissenting opinions are welcome"

But I totally support the DU design and platform being for Democratic Party constituencies only.

I was just rambling on about whether, if somebody puts restrictions that speak to somebody's core identity, what is the appropriate course: Accepting the conditions is probably not the way. Downgrading the relationship to surface/acquaintance level? Moving on completely?

I'm sounding like speaking in parables. For clearer terms, if the core identity is race/ethnicity or sexual identity the choices are clear: NOT accept the restrictions. But there are a brazillion other situations that are not that clear, like social gatherings or personal relationships where this or that are off limits.

A very weighty subject...if I may. I think that it all may just come down to "manners". Anyone who would pronounce or impose restrictions on anyone else's core values in a public situation, is at best "rude" and at worst a "moron". That being said, how one reacts to those restrictions depends on 2 criteria in my opinion. 1. How confrontational you feel at the moment.
2. How much beer you've had. 3. Or perhaps both.

Just some thoughts.

Travis McGee once said that "A friend is someone you can say any damned thing to." A friend of mine and I have a little meme we use from time-to-time, "We search for truth always." Of course, that isn't true -- hell, even Diogenes probably only spent about 20% of his time searching for truth.

But you can kite off into some pretty strange places if you follow down this track you're going. Looking for truth, you might find one or two that inconvenience you. In fact, you might find one or two that scare the crap out of you, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but nor is it necessarily a good thing.

I sometimes think that the old Roman Terence uttered the most pithy statement about being ever made: "I am a human being, and nothing human is foreign to me." But that means some pretty heavy stuff -- like that walking into a theatre and shooting 70 people is not foreign to humanity, which is not a conclusion many would want to get to.

So is equality a myth? No, universality is. We all have matrices of expectations and experience which effect us every day, and which may be very different from someone else's matrices. Sometimes, you may find the intersection of the two extraordinarily similar, and sometimes you will find the intersections seem non-existent. Naturally, we are most comfortable with the most similar, which is "sticking to our own kind" if you like. But it is possible to push the envelope, and to expand those matrices. That's what this gig called life is supposed to be about.

If limits are consciously decided upon, then nobody is being "fooled." And there is nothing wrong with a limit or two. Limits are what make social intercourse possible -- an agenda is a limitation, but without an agenda, what gets done?

As for intimate relationships, it's perfectly human to feel resentment or regret when someone else sets limits. Or when we find ourselves setting limits, if it comes to that. I don't think that setting limits makes something dishonest, because we are what we are. Insofar as one of the purposes of a relationship is to provide comfort, arguably like-mindedness and limits are prerequisites to a relationship. Obviously too much focus on comfort could lead to one burying his head in the sand and rejecting Global Warming, but that's really not "dishonest" -- because we are what we are. Nothing wrong with striving for more -- "Man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a Heaven for?" -- but also nothing wrong with deciding that I'm not going to strive right now, and have a beer.

Which old Sam Johnson realized a while ago:

Hermit hoar, in solemn cell
Wearing out life's evening grey;
Smite thy bosom, sage, and tell,
What is bliss? And which the way?

Thus I spoke, and speaking sigh'd;
Scarce repressed the starting tear,
When the smiling sage replied --
"Come, my lad, and drink some beer."

-- Mal

Remember, luerve is all around you.

-- Mal

physical equality does not and will not exist.
intellictual equality will never exist, we can't all be Einsteins and, thank God we won't all be O'Reilleys.
We can't all be off-spring of wealthy parents, there will be poor and variations of poor just like variations of wealthy.

We are human beings and that is our defect. I like to think that as a group, as a society we are trying to improve.

I've given this subject a lot of thought. Please feel free to call me a jerk if you wish. I am of the opinion that NOT all people are created equal, no matter how touching that platitude is.
Let me explain.
1. This one is easy. We are not equal in our abilities.
Obviously, I am not the guitar playing equal of EVH,
But I may be a better fisherman. nuff said
2. We are not equal in our benefit to society. Nobody can tell
me that the "movie shooter nut" is as valuable to society
as people who work in the Peace Corps.To bring it to a
personal level, I am not as valuable to Society as was
Mother Theresa or Gandhi.
3. We are not equal in the eyes of the Law. That one doesn't
need explaining.
4. This ones trickier, and perhaps someone with a religious
bent can clarify. I don't think that we are equal in the eyes
of God either. If there is an omnipotent all knowing being,
you can't convince me that he/she holds ME in the same
reverence as a child molester or a Uni bomber.

Feel free to pile on. lol