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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TH who wrote (2415)	1/22/2001 10:03:32 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

How could you prove it isn't normal? Animals engage in homosexual activity regularly. Human animals always have and probably always will.

To: TH who wrote (2415)	1/22/2001 10:12:44 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The Democratic party is not one party, under one tent, and that is one of their biggest problems. Having diverse viewpoints is a problem only when consolidating power. Personal freedom is enhanced by such an inclusive policy.

To: TH who wrote (2415)	1/22/2001 10:22:48 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I can prove, beyond a doubt, that being homosexual is in fact not "normal" in the grand design of life. I don't think you, or I, or anybody else knows what "the grand design of life" is, or even if there is one. In any event, it really doesn't matter to me, as I do not see any reason why the government should be declaring anything to be normal or abnormal. The only question government should be evaluating is whether a given form of behaviour intrudes on anyone else's rights. Homosexuality, whether by birth or by choice, does not do that. There is a huge difference is allowing a six year old kid to be exposed to homosexual behavior vs. a high school student. I would suggest that children be exposed to the reality of homosexual behaviour at the point where they begin using "faggot" as an expression of contempt. how many of your Democratic union brothers would support gay rights? Who said I was a democrat? The Democratic party is not one party, under one tent, and that is one of their biggest problems. The Republicans have the same problem. Many who are drawn to the Republican party's fiscal conservatism and its stand on taxes cannot tolerate the attempts of the religious right to use secular power to impose its own intrusive morality. The religious right can't tolerate the views of the libertarian right on social issues. Most Republicans in the corporate world are all for free trade and multilateralism, but we see a lot of right-wing faces marching against the WTO, NAFTA, the IMF, and other organizations (organizations inevitably denounced in developing countries as tools of the corporate right) devoted to promoting free trade. The Republicans may have been more successful in uniting these divided groups in the last election (though not much more successful), just as the Democrats were more successful in uniting their divided constituencies in the two previous elections. A successful attempt to bridge divisions does not mean the divisions do not exist. They do exist, and will very likely reappear as the Bush administration begins to articulate policy. Creating and sustaining a coalition platform that bridges divisions within the party is not hard to do while running an opposition campaign. All you have to do is tell each group what they want to hear, and try not to contradict yourself too drastically. It's a good deal more difficult when you're in the chair, and the hounds are all barking over the same pound of flesh.

To: TH who wrote (2415)	1/22/2001 10:57:49 PM
From: E	Respond to of 82486

<< I can prove, beyond a doubt, that being homosexual is in fact not "normal" in the grand design of life.>> How oddly positive you are of this. "Beyond a doubt" can only apply if you define "in the grand design of life" so that homosexuals are excluded by the very nature of the Thurston-created definition, I think. Is it Thurston Howell's design of life you have in mind? You did put the word 'normal' in quotation marks. I guess you know it's a special usage you have in mind. A stipulated one. <<The issue is the promotion of the gay lifechoice as an acceptable and valid alternative.>> My guess is that the percentage of individuals who are making a choice of whom to be sexually turned on by and whom-- and, therefore, to fall in love with-- is very small. I suspect that the situation with you is that you are so accustomed to homosexuals being ashamed and on the defensive and fearful and closeted, and being treated decently only as an act of charity on your part, that the recent decision of many homosexuals to exercise their first amendment rights for a change seems to you very aggressive and threatening-- that is, it feels to you like "promotion." If you are gay, and millions and millions of others are, too, why in the world can't you assert to those who would promulgate the view that your lifestyle is not an acceptable and valid alternative that they are wrong, and bigots, and you are going to say so? I'm so glad that gay teenagers, who have suffered so for so long, can have hope, now, that they won't alway feel alone and ashamed. Maybe their disproportionately high suicide rate will decline, even.