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 (421058)	7/1/2003 1:04:25 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

>>Yup, now that the Supreme Court has finally cleared that up, we can strike down those remaining sodomy laws.<< Actually, homosexuals had the right to have homosexual sex long before any supreme court ruling. They have the right to sin against themselves just as I have the right to commit suicide. It is a natural right. But society ought to have the right to exclude them because they insist on participating in humanly foreign behavior. >>Agreed. They cannot force society to accept homosexuality as 'right'. However, they can force society to extend them the basic rights that are afforded to others, and protect them from outright discrimination because of their homosexuality.<< They have no such right by nature. My wife and I have certain rights by virtue of our heterosexual marriage because my wife and I are the very reflection of human society. We are you and all other humans in society. To discriminate against us because of our marriage would be to discriminate against your own biological nature. Not so with homosexual “couples.” No human anywhere in the world is reflected in that false union and so humans everywhere can naturally reject it. A homosexual may have rights due to the fact he is a biological heterosexual, just like all other humans. But he has NO NATURAL RIGHT due him merely because he is in a homosexual relationship. His relationship is completely foreign to the very fundamental definition of man. >>'All Men Are Created Equal (Assuming Their Fundamental Biological Identities Are the Same as Ours)".<< Dear me. Think closely here. If a person’s fundamental biological identity is not the same as ours, that person is not a person. The whole thing is driven by natural identity. Homosexuality biologically defines no single human on earth. If a “thing” ever comes into being having NOT emanated of male and female genetic contributions, then that thing BY DEFINITION will not be human. >>Unproven either way that [no one is born a homosexual]; being heavily debated and researched. However, no one is born a biological atheist, so the point is a non sequitur.<< Please. We are ALL born biological atheists simply because no one is born knowing God. We are ALL born biological heterosexuals simply because our very bodies are comprised of fundamental materials ALWAYS from exactly one man and exactly one woman. That is common sense and no research is needed. You, like the rest of society, have just lost touch with what you are. So now you are prepared to claim homosexuality is compatible with your nature. Well then just wait and see, playa (grin). >>What about abstinence; isn't that also foreign?<< Abstinence is no sexual scheme or behavior. Indeed it is merely the lack of a sexual behavior. Abstinence is human simply because at some point ALL of us must BY DEFINITION OF OUR HUMAN NATURE biologically abstain from sex. That is why we do not recoil from those who abstain. Abstinence is us. Chronic abstinence is foreign to our identity and as such society has no obligation to accept it – and, society quite obviously does not accept it. But because all of us clearly identify with it by our very natures, it is not repugnant to us. >>This is the same argument some us for polygamy; it isn't 'natural' for a man to be restricted to one woman.<< Polygamy is foreign to our biological nature. NO HUMAN ON EARTH is comprised of fundamental biological material from two women and one man, or any other sort or combination. We recoil from polygamy because NONE OF US has any biological part of it at all. As such, we have no natural obligation to accept it at all. >>Flying into space is also not natural.<< If you jump from a tree, you fly into space. If you hop, skip, move at all, you move through space. The principle applies to human travel in outer space. We can all identify with it. It is us. >>Ok, then tell me why the religious right is so fervent in their attacks on homosexual marriage, and no atheist marriages.<< Because they intuitively understand that a man, ANY man and a woman, ANY woman, reflects fundamental human identity and that homosexual “unions” are a perversion of human identity. They do not wish to be subject to a law that forces them to acknowledge what by nature is deeply flawed and foreign to all humans everywhere and at every time. >>And, what Constitution grounds could their possibly be to deny equal rights to homosexuals e.g. the right to marry?<< Homosexuals can “marry” all they wish. But NO ONE should be forced to acknowledge, grant rights, respect or any such thing to that “marriage” because such “marriages” are BY NATURE foreign to every human. So if a human desires to live in integrity with human identity, he should be free to do so, acknowledging ONLY heterosexual marriages (which simply reflect himself).