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 (132830)	3/22/2001 1:20:54 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769668

You use the term "originate" as if humans pop into existence from sex and are not the physical combinations of their parents. One of my sons walks as I do and yet has the voice timbre of his mother. To look at him you would swear he was my clone-- a mini me (he completes me). I am physically linked to him. My adopted son has my character, my beliefs and many of my personality traits, but he does not look as much like me as my biological sons and daughter. He is spiritually linked directly to me, but biologically linked to two other people-- one man and one woman. Fundamentally, however, he has the same nature that I have-- we are both one man/one woman human organisms. We share that most fundamental human biological reality, and my wife and I reflect that to him incessantly. She and I are a physical representation to him of his fundamental human nature. Ideally, his father and mother should have served this function, but dung happens. My wife and I have done it instead, and without any problem because essentially, she and I are he. We reflect the fundamental truth that upholds his existence and that of all members of his species. On the other hand, two men are not he and such a union has no part of his biological nature. Ultimately the point concerns integrity. The homosexual scheme has no integrity with human nature, and on this basis should be rejected by society as an alternative to heterosexuality. This does not mean homosexuals should not have the right to have sex. It means that forced acceptance of homosexuality in society has no logical support because homosexuality is not reflective of the basic nature of society. Members of society are free to embrace a lack of integrity if they choose, but no one has the logic to force those who care about truth to embrace falsity. Even the societal recognition of your "civil unions" is going too far. It forces acceptance of falsity. The vehicles to fashion the essential bonds of "civil union" already exist as a component of individual humanity and citizenship. I must run. A pleasure as always. If you like, we might continue when I return. A few others have posted to me, and I have lost track of their posts. No time to respond to them now. So sorry.