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: Neocon who wrote (421111)	7/1/2003 10:44:42 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

we cannot condemn homosexual acts, which are not otherwise destructive to society. That is the crux of the matter, and the elephant in the living room everyone has been cowed into ignoring. We will find, as past societies have, that embracing, and celebrating homosexual behavior is indeed destructive to society.

To: Neocon who wrote (421111)	7/1/2003 10:48:47 AM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Do you think he errs relative to the other abnormal sexual activities that may be considered for status by the courts? I think it's a stretch but I'm not sure on what basis they will be denied. Privacy has led pretty quickly to "marriage", not, I'm sure what they intended.

To: Neocon who wrote (421111)	7/1/2003 11:25:01 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The homosexual is afflicted with a pestilence of death. As you say it may be wired but it may be chosen. But the death in that wiring and choice is a fact. If we ban all kinds of physical threats because there may cause 1 in million deaths, then how is doing that which provides exposure to a choice or rewiring to a life path of death wrong. You talk of species. I speak of every individuals right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have the right to eliminate deadly threats to me and to my children and their children. Open and accepted homosexuality is a deadly threat. Statistically abnormal, but biologically maladaptive is not black and white but many shades of gray and the cues of society are clearly shadows and lights in the mental state of an individuals sexual predelection. A person grows up confused and marries and has children then figures out he will be happier as a homosexual. Abandons family for his homosexual predelection. It were better his children were never born and he lived a more satisfied life of masterbation with a buddy. And if these are your grand children does it mean more or less. Homosexuals out of sight and out of mind are fine. I won't ask unless it may impact young children and I won't tell if it's out of sight and out of mind. Homosexuals in public are an infectious pestilence. Clearly exposing it as selfish gratification and certain death is correct and right and has not a shade of bigotry as it is life's truth. This is just about the variations in biology and the probability of an individual being exposed and infected. Some are wired infected and some are wired to be easily infected. And how many are wired not infectible at all but in confusion fall into a life of that infection and are also not happy. If ones first exposure to sexual arousal is seeing homosexuals engaged is somehow the first visual cues imprinted. Is the first experience with a girl so fraught with anxiety that the memory of those first visual cues takes over and one then seeks the earlier gratification. There are thousands of scenarios, eliminating exposure to the cues will stop many infections. The hard wired will figure it out. And the active selfish American only looks for pleasure and does not care about the partner and any damage for life caused. Clinton raped women. The mind that can do that exists in homosexuals as well. Having sex knowing one has aids is a crime. How is having sex as a homosexual and infecting anothers mind with the pestilence of death any different. What occurs more often, aids transmission or the statistically abnormal, but biologically maladaptive homosexual predelection.

To: Neocon who wrote (421111)	7/1/2003 11:33:05 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Actually Neo, my position has not so much to do with the biological maladaptiveness of homosexuality (though that is part of it, of course). It has more to do with homosexuality’s lack of identity or sameness with our human biological construction – our fundamental biological identity. This principle of identity literally reigns in all our actions. It is why you have a natural inclination to be closer to your own son than to mine. It is also why, should you adopt my son, you are capable of embracing him as your own. In this case the path of identity allowing the bond is found through a shared human condition between you and my son. You instinctively sense that, though my son has no direct genetic link to you, he is ultimately like you in a most fundamental sense, and therefore can continue in the future to promote your legacy, perhaps not genetically, but certainly ideologically. No such path of identity exists between this philosophy of man and that of homosexuality. We can by no means identify ourselves as “homosexuals” when our very flesh is comprised of genetic materials that by nature emanate only of a male-female union. We are physical heterosexuals in the most fundamental sense, and it is impossible that we might find some logical path to embrace homosexuality as a human identity. For this reason it is unfair to use the might of law to force beings who know what they are in nature, to live as though they are ignorant of themselves. Yet, this is what homosexuals aim to do when they demand our heterosexual society protect and affirm them not merely on the basis of their human nature, but on the basis of their sexual behavior. That behavior is not naturally identified with what humans fundamentally are. Whether homosexuality is a choice or whether there exists a reliable cure for it are unimportant here. I think homosexuality is likely a mixture of pure choice, psychological conditioning and, perhaps, genetic predisposition. I am unwilling in this discussion to declare our actions the result of simple genetics and that we have no choice at all in what we do. We are moral agents. But the issue here concerns the right of humans to affirm themselves, to promote their own essential identity as humans and to not be forced to affirm and promote identities foreign and even hostile to them. When homosexuals successfully exploit government might to garner benefits based upon a behavior that is not human, they threaten the right of heterosexually aware humans to live with integrity. I do not condemn the homosexual. He is free to live as a homosexual and free to associate with all who would associate with him. I condemn the homosexual’s use of might to force a societal affirmation of what is clearly foreign to society. Merely because he is afflicted with a condition is no reason to demand society accommodate his affliction as humanly acceptable. We do this for no other affliction. We instead accommodate the afflicted, always being aware of the fact that they are afflicted – that their condition is a flaw in need of a cure. Only in the case of homosexuality is there a push to normalize what is patently flawed. It is that push for normalization that I condemn. I condemn it because it is false. We do not condemn someone with myopia for wearing glasses because myopia is widely recognized as a flaw in vision that is in need of correction. No one claims myopia is an alternative lifestyle against which no one can discriminate. We do not condemn polio victims for the same reason. We may discriminate against both afflictions because we all recognize them to be foreign to humanity (i.e. flaws to us). The same applies to mental retardation. And it should apply to homosexual behavior. But unlike homosexuality, myopia, polio and retardation all have a direct and proven basis in genetics. People with myopia simply cannot will themselves to see properly, in accordance with standard human sight. Homosexuals can certainly will themselves to act properly, much as murderers can will themselves to act properly, though they may both have psychological predispositions to act improperly. For this reason homosexuality is validly condemned beyond myopia when it is presented as valid fundamental human identity (which it is not). Is it worth it to condemn homosexuals to a life of fear of exposure, or, if conforming to social rules, a life divorced from erotic affection, in order to avoid some social consternation? Homosexuals have the right to enjoy society and erotic affection - but only inasmuch as the society voluntarily forms around them and only inasmuch as their partners give themselves in affection. Homosexuals do not have the natural right to force affirmation of homosexuality upon all of society, this, on the basis of a relationship that is foreign to the fundamental identity of society. This is really why you do not wish to put homosexual unions on the same footing as marriage. You intuitively sense the incompatibility of homosexuality and the very definition of society. Marriage is society in its essential unit. Homosexuality is a perversion of society and you understand it, whether you would flatly admit it or not. (grin)