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: Johannes Pilch who wrote (421073)	7/1/2003 1:29:14 AM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

>>Actually, homosexuals had the right to have homosexual sex long before any supreme court ruling<< Not according to the Texas Sodomy law that the SC struck down. The two fellows who brought the case had been convicted under that law. >>They have no such right by nature<< People (well, European people) used to think that blacks and natives were subhuman, and could be killed or enslaved because they weren't quite human. Sounds as if you are making the same argument: homosexuals are not quite human. That is your opinion, not a 'natural' law. >>Dear me. Think closely here. If a person’s fundamental biological identity is not the same as ours, that person is not a person<< My goodness, this argument almost exactly mirrors the aforementioned argument about non-Europeans. It used to be their blackness, or redness, or strange pagan ways, or shape of their eyes. >>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.<< Ah, onto the meat of the argument. Homosexuality is wrong, and thus not protected, because it is repugnant to you. Chronic abstinence is also not acceptable, but protected, because it is not so repugnant? >>NO HUMAN ON EARTH is comprised of fundamental biological material from two women and one man, or any other sort or combination<< Men are quite capable of keeping more than one wife, as history has shown. In certain cases in history, where men were in short supply because of wars, men were expected to keep more than one wife. Some have come to the conclusion that it is MORE natural for a man to have multiple wives than a single one. So, your perception of what is NATURAL is simple an opinion not shared by all. >> 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.<< They would not be subject to any such law. What they would have to accept is that others, through their own choice, have decided to accept a lifestyle that they do not agree with. How could you possibly turn around a situation where a group is being discriminated against, and make it sound like the discriminators are the victims? >>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).<< Can you hear yourself? No one should be forced to grant rights to someone who marries outside of their notion of what is natural? These people are not asking for your acceptance, or blessing, or friendship. They are asking for the basic rights that are afforded heterosexual couples. If you choose to shun these neighbors of yours, it is your choice. But, you have no moral or legal right to take away their basic rights.