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: Johannes Pilch who wrote (151129)	6/6/2001 7:00:22 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

In fact, as I am sure I said, the reason I posted in response to your homosexual posts is that I got a PM with a link to them from a gay SI friend who was deeply upset but didn't feel up to posting personally. I did my best. So unhysterical was I that I didn't even remember the exchange. (It must have been my first encounter with you.) I wonder if you've ever had a homosexual family member. I had a lesbian aunt. I try not to think of Aunt Jean's tormented, unnecessarily tragic and painful life. She engaged, in her lonely life, in very little of what you call "perverse behavior," because she 'bought' your characterization of her nature and desires. She tried to love men. Sometimes a best effort is futile, futile, futile. Could you, with effort, love a man? My Aunt Jean couldn't either. My grandmother (Aunt Jean's mother) and her sisters (my mother and other aunt) felt as you do, and succeeded in ending, through a mixture of shaming and intimidation, her pitifully few efforts to bring warmth and love and sexual bliss into her life. Children aren't allowed to enter into contracts of any sort in our society. Pedophiles harm children deeply. I don't understand "integrity with objective biological fact." Does it imply that if objective biological findings can show something along the lines of a "gay gene" or "gay brain chemistry," you'd then accept it as "objective biological fact"? You know what an example of an objective biological fact is? An erection. There are males who don't get them for women. (Will you pay me the respect (and save me the time) please, Johannes, of not bothering to say that i'm implying that all erections justify any penetration?) Is heterosexual oral sex "perverse behavior," and out of sync with "objective biological fact"? -- and if it is, is it immoral or unethical, to you? How about naughty toys? Masturbation? How about masturbation, if a person's erotic nature goes there, while fantasizing a member of the same sex, as long as they don't 'go there' for real? (These are not joke questions, even if they're a little comic; I ask them with genuine interest, and hope for literal answers.) Johannes: I confess my suspicion, now that i've encountered your intelligence and sense of humor, that you are, for some reason possibly writerly, possibly only because it amuses you, pretending to a position you don't truly hold. I would keep that suspicion to myself and only address your points except that i'm taking your last line as hint to me that this suspicion is correct. If this is mostly retread from the earlier exchange, sorry about that. Don't stop saying dang all the time, for heaven's sake. It's funny!