Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : To be a Liberal,you have to believe that..... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DJB who wrote (1113)	9/8/1999 11:30:00 AM
From: MikeH	Respond to of 6418

In sociology, the taboo theory holds here. What it says is that there are two true, universal human taboos. These are "preprogramed" responses humans have across nearly all cultures. The first is incest. Incest only occurs rarely in primitive, ancient or modern civilizations, as an institutional function - something that is accepted. When it does occur, it is almost always a result of power conservation by the ruling class. The inbreeding of European nobility during the dark ages and of the ancient South American culutures are the prime examples. The other is cannabalism, and this taboo is broken with some frequency in war like cultures - usually due to a protein deficiency in local diet. Homosexuality has never really been a human taboo. Most advanced cultures had homosexuality as an institutional function. Greek universities, Roman bath houses. It is not something I appreciate, but there is a lot of evidence that "queer" behavior becomes more prominant as a societie's affluence rises. It is believed that this is due to a lowered pressure to reproduce, allowing those who wish to be gay, the luxury to do so.

To: DJB who wrote (1113)	9/8/1999 11:35:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

No problem, Dennis. That's what abortions are all about. Just mutilate the little cell mass and your sole problem with incest goes away.

To: DJB who wrote (1113)	9/8/1999 1:06:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

Dennis, that may be a partial explanation for the lack of acceptance in the past. Although, I believe you will find inbreeding causes far less problems than most realize. However, how does that relate to the now and the future? Do we prevent people with a high propensity to pass on genetically diseased traits to marry? No, we simply leave it up to the individuals to take the risk and assume the responsibility. I would submit that due to the spread of the aids virus the act of homosexuality (although not fully to blame) has a much higher risk and cost to society that an incestuous relationship. So why should society openly accept one and not the other? And taking it even further, why should we teach children in public schools to accept it? You could make the case that an incestuous relationship between a father daughter, mother son, sister brother, or first cousins, pose a far less risk to society than a homosexual relationship. I would be further willing to bet that the predisposition to the relationship could be determined to be genetically passed on. And the people involved feel an overwhelming sense of love and desire for no one but their partner. So intellectually the issue boils down to cultural acceptance. Culturally some people are not willing to accept gay relationships as being normal. And culturally others are not willing to accept incestuous relationships as normal. That doesn't mean people want to go around committing violence against either group, or that their feelings and beliefs stand solely on a pedestal of religios context. It's simply a cultural norm. Changing the cultural acceptance of certain behavior takes many years to happen. I would submit that attitudes toward homosexuality are today experiencing this struggle. Michael