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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (1617)	5/29/2003 4:20:55 PM
From: Sunny	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793789

X, if you had not admitted to being a teacher I might have let your opinions pass with out comment. However, I wonder if you expressed your views to your principal and the superintendent, whether they would allow you to continue in your capacity in the school system. If these views are acceptable to Educratcy in California, God help us because our country is on the same road as the Roman empire. If these are your true views it also puts into context your opinions on discipline. It is also clear that your parents did not spend much time on teaching you right from wrong. Whether you care to admit it or not, most of society's laws governing behavior are based upon the moral laws that were established in Biblical times. Those laws defined behaviors that allow communities to function in harmony. Much of the erosion of values and civil behavior in the world has come about when those moral laws are flaunted and modernized. While we can not effectively legislate morality, we should never allow laws that facilitate immorality. Sunny

To: epicure who wrote (1617)	5/30/2003 1:41:20 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793789

The matter under discussion isn't about what John or I believe are the ethics of regulating what consenting adults may do, but rather what the law IS. I frankly don't give a flying tutu what anybody does in their bedroom, and really don't want to hear about it! ;) The court has decided that the states may regulate out of marriage sexual acts. That is, that there is no protected privacy right to non-heterosexual, non-marriage sex. That's the case law in a nutshell, as was very well summarized in the piece by the Princeton law prof. The whole deal is John thinks Rick Santorum is a bigoted homophobe because he paraphrased the substantive legal issue, and everyone with an axe wanted it ground on him. I continue to beat myself against the Rock of John in hopes he may, for once, change his opinion. Derek