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 (132699)	3/21/2001 7:45:27 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| 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. That's almost fair, I suppose. It depends on whether you think that trained soldiers are such slaves to physical impulse that they'll ignore discipline and have sex with each other (whatever gender), and allow such relationships to override training... hehhehheh. Well, maybe that's true. OTOH, I was in the TA sigs (Territorial Army - like your National Guard, I think, entirely voluntary and part-time, sigs = signallers ~ telecoms) and that managed quite well as a mixed regiment. There may be valid arguments against close-proximity mixed regiments, the Israeli's found such unsuccessful, but since homosexuality has been around for millennia, it clearly hasn't caused any great problems. The Athenians and Spartans, for example, were not noticeably weakened by it... the opposite, if anything. , 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. And I don't see how this is affected for the worse by treating all people as equal. Regardless, to put it bluntly, of which genitalia they prefer and how.

To: Neocon who wrote (132699)	3/22/2001 5:02:54 AM
From: cAPSLOCK	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Bleah. You kind of say what I meant... but better I think. Message 15544921 regards, cAPSLOCK

To: Neocon who wrote (132699)	3/22/2001 11:43:30 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

In the case of celibacy, nature is sacrificed to supernatural goals. In the case of sterility, it depends upon how, when, and why. Additionally, natural sterility and celibacy are no actions and since morality is concerned with thought and action these conditions cannot be included in any moral judgement. They simply reflect a status of an individual who has rights in civilized society by virtue of his/her individual humanity. They should not have rights by virtue of their celibacy and sterility, just as homosexuals should not have rights by virtue of their homosexuality. But hetero married couples should certainly have rights by virtue of their marriages because such marriages reflect and promote who we are-- unlike any other. Even the hetero couple that cannot reproduce by nature reflects who we are and can adopt to consistently mirror to their children their fundamental human nature. Homosexual couples simply cannot do this. They will consistently reflect a distortion of human nature to children. This is but one of myriad reasons why such "unions" should not be normalized in society.