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: Kevin Rose who wrote (239068)	3/17/2002 6:20:16 PM
From: joseph krinsky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I guess you consider homosexuals a third type of human. There's men, women, and homosexuals to you? I always looked at homosexuals as people that preferred sex with their same sex. To me, that makes homosexuality a sexual preference, not a third type of a human. IMO people who claim discrimination based on homosexuality have no claim, they are basing their complaints on sexual preferences. If there are laws that say you cannot discriminate based on sexual preferences, then I guess they have a beef, but I am unaware of any.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (239068)	3/17/2002 7:13:08 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

>> Your religion dictates that homosexuality is wrong. What if mine did not? Does the Constitution only protect YOUR brand of religion? << you're the one who said in effect, "what if my religion compels me to murder people?" should the constitution only protect your religion which teaches that murder is wrong, and not my religion which compels me to practice it? that is how ridiculous your argument is. you are trying to make the case that anyone can start a religion and hide behind it to do whatever they choose, and then claim that the constitution protects their religion. >> but to consider whether the rights of homosexuals are indeed covered by our Constitution. Can you honestly say not? << what "rights" are you referring to? you are rattling on incessantly about some mysterious rights homosexuals need to be given. like the other poster said, you are trying to define homosexuals as people that need special rights or protections. homosexuals already have rights. they seek to gain privileged status simply because of their behavior we already have laws against threatening and menacing people. for example, why do homos deserve special hate crime laws?