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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (10456)	4/23/2002 11:11:45 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

"if "aversion to homosexuality" is the criterion for its application, there is the risk of labelling hundreds of millions at a time, beginning with all Christians, Jews, and Islamics." No. There would be no risk in labelling ALL of those; hmmmm--perhaps some... Certainly, it would not apply to all the homosexual Christians and Jews and Muslims; and what about priests?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (10456)	4/23/2002 11:17:33 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

It is a cool way to save time and thought, however. If the definition fits, wear it. Tim was wrong about the meaning of the word. It is not limited to "fear of", which is what he seemed to be saying. But I see that you couldn't resist a condescending insult and I hope that it made you feel happy, because it made me feel that I made a mistake trying to communicate. Had the window not expired, I would have deleted my post so it remains. I however, do not.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (10456)	4/24/2002 12:30:55 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 21057

Even where religious people were shallow enough to condemn the (to them) God given nature of others...it is unlikely that many of them would have an "aversion" (I.E. a feeling of repugnance) toward people who are loving...especially if they are in the service of the LORD. Even for those who have personal values which evoke disapproval...it in no way implies repugnance.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (10456)	4/24/2002 3:47:39 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

It seems common sense that making a conscious effort to avoid things that do not contribute to your well being is a wise course of action. I have an aversion to many things that, although having some element of attraction, I consider in the long run to be harmful. Adultery, drinking, gambling for example. I also have aversions to other things that have absolutely no element of attraction. The acts of a coprophiliac for example. I am not attracted to the idea of homosexual acts but can empathise with persons so inclined. I get along just fine with people who are living an alternative (alternative to my own) life style as long as I avoid involvement in salient aspects of the lifestyle itself. Is that phobic? According to the definition floating on this thread we all qualify as creatures existing in a vast multitude of phobias. Well, cept for those that have no aversion to anything???? I haven't met one of those yet btw...but then, I do have an aversion to such people. Relationship "issues" are so messy to discuss. Even if you are a homogeneous group (all heterosexuals for example) it doesn't take long before skinny starts calling fatty names and visa versa (analogous not literal). There are few exeptions. The only one that I know of is when one person loves the other (cares for his/her well being) as much as he/she loves himself/herself. (Notice how hard I am working to be PC here.) This kind of caring is, IMO, impossible without a common belief system. Any other type of intimate relationship is reduced to mutual usury at best. The potential here for betrayal of trust is immense. Why? Because these relationships are needs based only; and when needs are satisfied the usefulness is used up. So the glue of the relationships becomes soluble. When there is an issue of betrayal it never remains confined to the afore mentioned mutually consenting individuals.