SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: goldworldnet who wrote (341828)1/12/2003 6:06:22 PM
From: Johannes Pilch  Read Replies (1) of 769670
 
I think your view would be the natural view of the vast majority of people, since homosexuality is not fundamentally part of human identity and since it indeed represents a philosophical threat against continued humanity. Almost no father who wishes to transmit himself into the future longs to have his son "marry" another man. He will almost always wish to have his son marry a woman because that relationship is the relationship that is the identity of all humanity. Fathers who run contrary to this human rule are natural oddities, much as are those who would kill themselves.

Yet I don't think everyone would be overtly hostile to homosexuals. Many people have the ability to suspend adherence to nature so long as unnatural behavior is not forced upon them and/or set up as a possible way of life for their children. Your view re openly homosexual people in public schools is likely shared by the vast majority of humans, not mere Americans, but humans period because they reflect a fear that tacit support of an unnatural variation of behavior relevant to fundamental identity may prove faddish to their children. There exists no natural partition between homosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior. Impressionable children can (and probably do) experiment with this illness and many parents do not wish for this possibility.

Even were homosexuality found to be caused genetically (which is not the case), it would give us no reason to treat it as if it were part of the fundamental identity of our species. The objective facts prove it is not. The behavior is obviously terminal to any human line attached to it, much like cancer and a host of other genetically influenced sicknesses.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News