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: The Philosopher who wrote (1222)	9/8/1999 4:28:00 PM
From: SofaSpud	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 6418

I doubt this will forestall the flames, but I'm going to start with a disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with any group that would be termed religious. Never been baptized, nothin. Why is it that so many people treat religion as if, when they were kids, they were frightened by priests jumping out and saying 'boo'? How is it that professing religious faith is analogous to intolerance (at best) or fascism (at worst)? Seems to me that's about as useful a generalization as 'all gays are good' (or "all gays are evil"). I don't admire those "Christians" who use Sunday morning TV to suck money from old ladies' bank accounts. But I have met a number of people who do a very great deal of good, e.g. working with the "underclass", and whose motivation stems from a sincere religious faith. Frankly, I envy them their faith sometimes. My sister (who was born in 1946) is thoroughly down on religion. Is it a boomer thing to see them all as Falwell? Or is it that the church is associated with the 50s and early 60s, which were seen as oppressive times, perhaps because it was still acceptable to 'judge' behaviour as appropriate or inappropriate?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (1222)	9/8/1999 4:34:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6418

>I assume, then, that you believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry?< I don't know if I'd use the word "marry" because that seems to be a specialty activity/condition of the opposite sexes. Semantic thing. But I do think gay couples should be allowed a ceremony and legal status equivalent to being married - with a divorce-equivalent required to dissolve the partnership. The fun begins with n > 2. I think a triad of men should be rejected as bigamous. >The question you don't address is why these proscriptions started in the first place.< Because I don't know. My approach isn't scholarly. It has more to do with watching people, hearing their stories. While I distinguish between substance use and substance abuse (e.g. habitual drunkenness) it is pretty evident to me that drug addiction is maladaptive - it can routinely escalate to where it overrides the basic will to live and eat. I do not see that liability for maladaption with homosexuality. Certainly there are extreme practitioners, like the "barebacking" parties recently dramatized wherein at least one anonymous partygoer has HIV, but these are nowhere near the norm.