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: Dayuhan who wrote (11234)	4/29/2002 10:10:51 AM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 21057

>> The issue is not whether we are qualified to exercise judgment, but whether we are qualified to judge what is "right" and "wrong" in cases where our rights are not affected << homosexuality as it is advocated today affects the larger community so don't try to play games with talk of privacy issues. >> That doesn't mean that you are qualified to impose your judgments on others who judge differently. << i am not arguing for a dictatorship here. society as a whole does have the right to impose judgements, and i am lobbying for society to make one in the case of homosexuality. you and other homosexual advocates are doing the exact same thing, trying to enact your political agenda. i could just as easily argue that homosexuals are trying to infringe on my rights. >> If you judge that homosexuality is "wrong" for you, you are certainly qualified to do so. You are not qualified to make that judgement for anybody else. << so if society has no right to make judgements except regarding the self, then why do we have laws? why do we need government? if everyone is allowed to decide for themselves what laws best suit them, but have no right to decide for others, then i suppose there is no need for law or government. if society has no right to judge homosexuality immoral, then i suppose society has no right judge pedophilia to be immoral. so homosexual advocates such as yourself are really advocating the molestation of children. >> We do not have an objective, mutually agreed standard for what is "right" and what is "wrong", << hah! maybe for a pagan such as yourself, but everyone else has relied on religion and natural law for thousands of years. >> making such judgments an exercise in pissing into the wind << gosh you are ignorant. it's a shame that you believe that the rest of society is just as ignorant as you. when you make such foolish statements you are attempting to argue that nobody has the capability to pass judgement, so let's just live in anarchy. that is exactly what you are advocating, don't try to say any different. if society doesn't have the capability to pass judgements about what is morally right or wrong, then there is no need for government or law. we are no better than animals and should live as such. >> We do have a list of rights that we have agreed shall not be infringed upon << so what! i never said i agree with that list of rights. those were written over two centuries ago! what gives a bunch of white males who lived more than two centuries ago the right to make judgements about yours or my rights? why do they get to decide, yet you claim i don't get to decide? are you implying that our rights come from some 200+ year old piece of paper written by white men? why are they in charge? >> and we base our laws on that standard, not on anybody's ideas of "rightness" or "wrongness". << what "standard" is that specifically? >> We don't ban murder because it's "wrong". We ban it because it infringes upon the right to life, which is protected by law. << but there is a difference between murder and killing, correct? sometimes homicide is justifiable. so how do we decide when killing is justified or when it is murder? i don't see where that is explained in the constitution, do you? can you go find it for me? if you can't find it, then you must assume that society has the right to pass judgement on what it believes to be justifiable homicide and murder. whoops! i forgot, members of society only have the right to judge for themselves, but have no right to decide if killing is right or wrong for others. care to explain this one?? >> If you can demonstrate that homosexual behaviour infringes upon your rights, you have cause for complaint << umm...what do you think i have been arguing here? that when homos start wanting special hate crimes legislation, marriage licenses, service in the armed forces, adoption rights, govt aids funding, etc. it has become a public matter, not a matter of privacy. when it becomes a public issue society has the right to impose limits it feels are necessary to maintain orderly society. >> If not, it's none of your business. << like i said before, if you want to sodomize your homo lover in your own home so be it. just don't ask society to recognize your "marriage", don't expect society to allow you in the military, don't expect society to allow you to adopt children, and don't expect society to spend public funds on aids drugs so you can continue on with your vile behavior. >> but private sexual behaviour between consenting adults is nobody's business but that of the adults concerned. << for starters, homosexuals are not claiming consent, and second, if that's all homosexuals were advocating, i'm sure they wouldn't have any problems. but we all know that the radical homosexual agenda wants much more than to be left alone. they want society to accept and respect their lifestyle. nothing in the constitution says i have to accept or respect immoral behavior.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (11234)	4/29/2002 2:28:56 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

"...private sexual behaviour between consenting adults is nobody's business but that of the adults concerned." Where the first part of this statement is true, the latter part is true also. Societal issues erupt wherein it is not.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (11234)	4/29/2002 3:52:12 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 21057

<< private sexual behaviour between consenting adults is nobody's business but that of the adults concerned. >> How liberal! Yet I seem to recall a number of cases which attracted some attention beyond the participants... 30 year old brother and 30 year old sister 40 year old math teacher and 18 year old student 50 year old law professor and 24 year old student 60 year old boss and 30 year old secretary 50 year old president and 23 year old intern 40 year old politician and 17 year old baby sitter 40 year old mother and 22 year old son 50 year old dad and 20 year old daughter 40 year old dad and 18 year old son 40 year old woman and retarded 30 year old man While you may consider these none of your business, most civilised societies take a different view.