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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (132524)	3/20/2001 2:10:40 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I concur. ~SB~

To: Neocon who wrote (132524)	3/20/2001 6:26:19 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Well, respect for joint assets and mutual power of attorney is not exactly the “civil union” homosexuals have in mind, Neocon. Homosexuals already have these rights based upon individual citizenship and not on sexual behavior. I agree that we should tolerate homosexuals (I don’t think we should kill them), but we should not accept homosexuality as a societal element for reasons I’ve listed previously. We should instead be sure to acknowledge the fact that while homosexuals are people with certain rights that come about as a result of their individual humanity, homosexuality is not us, and is in fact a defect rather than a healthy alternative to heterosexuality. Even if we as a society should determine not to reject the homosexual principle, individuals within society have logical reasons for rejecting it. When homosexuals try to force the Boy Scouts to accept homosexual leaders as they’ve recently attempted, they themselves show a clear lack of tolerance for the rights of individuals to reject behavior they know to lack integrity with fundamental human biological identity.

To: Neocon who wrote (132524)	3/21/2001 1:45:05 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

This is the weirdest thread. Hard to believe, really. I got a PM with a link to this post of yours, Neocon, and this comment from an understandably appalled SI member who is gay <<<Classic Neocon. A CURE for a nonexistant illness? What is that? Engineering to create the people we want. Oh, but we won't kill you, we'll find a drug to fix you up the way we want you to be.>>> What's most odd is how little notice discussions of the tenor of yours and Pilch's get here. You wrote (and reading back a little, I see you are the representative in this argument, on this thread, for "tolerance"!), "Even granting that homosexuality is a defect,..." "Until there is such a time that there is a reliable cure for homosexuality... I can see no other recourse than toleration, which means not taking every occasion to denounce....." Pilch wrote a whole lot of bizarre, medieval nonsense of this ilk: "A defect in sexual orientation represents a corruption of human identity and origin." To which your direct response was "Well, since I do not support the "normalization" of homosexuality, but only a reasonable degree of tolerance, I am not sure what we are arguing about." Maybe whether homosexuality is a "defect" that "represents a "corruption of human identity and origin" is worth arguing about. Or would be if one disagreed with the premise. Here's what I don't understand when I read this classic homophobic rhetoric. Why do you guys care who loves, and marries, whom? Why? Why do you think that isn't something that should be left up to the adult individual citizens involved? BTW, is heterosexual marriage in such great shape these days? Is anybody proposing to force you guys to marry someone of your own gender? People who love each other often want to get married, for both legal and emotional reasons. Perhaps to celebrate, to make a statement about their commitment to each other to their friends and the world. Just like straight people who are in love. Gay people fall in love, too. That's what is often forgotten by those fixated on their sexual organs. And they're citizens, too. I just do not understand it. Why on earth does any American citizen want to deprive any other American citizen of the right to marry the individual they love? It seems just so... mean. And so... profoundly intrusive. Medieval. I don't get it. Have you known any gay couples who have been together for decades? Life-long very happy, devoted, loving couples? Anyone who has known such couples would be hard pressed to tell them why they should have been blocked, or should be blocked now, from getting married. After all, the 18 year old boy and girl down the road got married last weekend when they were high and it seemed a good idea, and I don't hear anybody saying they shouldn't have had that right.