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: thames_sider who wrote (132694)	3/21/2001 7:32:09 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

In the armed forces, we try to segregate by sex, to avoid too intimate contact between the sexes. The rationale for antagonism to open homosexuality is the same. Attraction is not always rational. I have had too many guys hit on me despite "knowing" that I was heterosexual, because they had rationalized their attraction, to be sanguine that it would not be disruptive. Sexual norms are a product of society, but grounded in nature. Waiting later to marry off women is preferable, but I can say that because of observations about relative maturity at various ages. In other words, drawing from nature, I see the change as an improvement. The main issue is not reproduction, but apparent fittingness, which happens to include reproduction. Nature matters only insofar as it seems to reflect on the apparent order of things. In the case of celibacy, nature is sacrificed to supernatural goals. In the case of sterility, it depends upon how, when, and why. In any case, it is not a matter of simple "naturalism", but of fulfilling the needs of man as a rational and social animal, concerned with the good order of society.

To: thames_sider who wrote (132694)	3/22/2001 5:01:00 AM
From: cAPSLOCK	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

In the very most restricted sense of the word, homosexuality is a 'deviance' because it prevents reproduction. However, so does celibacy. And sterility. And, of course, contraception. Hmm... but a central argument (especially recently) for the acceptance of homosexuality as natural centers around the brain or genetics. The other things you mention are either choices or afflictions. So your comparison does not hold. Unless... you choose to accept the premise that homosexuality is also a choice. But when you do this you open up a whole 'nother can of worms. One can point to several reasons for our races problem with homosexuality. If you are spiritually conservative, then it is forbidden by god the same as adultery (in many traditions), and if you are scientifically bent, then it falls in the same sort of biologically inherent taboo as incest (oh I know I have crossed the line now) in that our instinct will resist that inclination for the sake of the species. The argument for accepting it so as 'not to be mean' (to paraphrase 'E') is really where I fall phillosophically. I, Like Neocon conclude that tolerance is the best stance in the end. But I cannot close my eyes to the natual fact that no matter how you slice it homosexuality is either a choice, or a defect. The same sort of defect as being born sterile. The same sort of choice as incest. I believe it is taboo for a reason.