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 (423449)	7/6/2003 3:30:11 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

[As far as Nature is concerned, families certainly can exist without the hetero scheme]. Same sex couples exist and thrive right here under your nose. Today's medical advances make it possible… You really must calmly think this through. When medicine takes the ovum from a lesbian, it always pairs the ovum with the material contributions of a man, not with a lesbian lover’s. That is heterosexuality, and it is us. Lesbians simply live contrary to this fundamental biological reality. The very child that comes from one of the lesbians comes from only one of the lesbians and from some man. As far as nature is concerned, the other lesbian is purely an outsider. No bonafide family exists here. Then how come everyone who argues against same sex marriage has a religious political agenda? Likely because, like heathens the vast majority of religious people have become so ignorant of themselves in nature they resort to inappropriate arguments to support their positions. Heathens cannot possibly know God. It is a complete waste of time to wage religious arguments against them on this sort of issue. Such arguments are distractions from the real power available to Christians – namely prayer and natural reason. Again, that is your religious attitude talking. I know of same sex families that are indistinguishable from more traditional families except that they have two mothers or two fathers. I do not rely upon religion here in the least. I think you know this. You’ve made this claim only to dismiss the natural fact inexorably before you. It will certainly not be dismissed by such fallacies, friend. Take note: You claim knowledge of same-sex “families” that are "indistinguishable" from traditional families except that they have two mothers or two fathers. You claim an inability to distinguish between a family with a mom and dad, and one with two fathers. Your blindness here is manifest and most lamentable. After all, nature has never once produced a two father “family,” but she produces traditional families every single minute of every single day. Indeed, you yourself have your mom and dad in your own body. But the significance of this fact is lost on you. It is this blindness that allows perversions of nature to flourish. To the children, it is no more different than families that have one parent, or parents of different races. This is not at issue. As far as nature is concerned, a blond-haired blue-eyed father is of another race from his red-haired green-eyed son. And a fair-skinned mother is of another race from her dark-skinned son. Clearly humans can all combine such that they are one thing in nature – despite your extra-natural racial biases. Those biases cause you to employ an objectively false analogy when you compare homosexual “families” to families wherein children are born to heterosexual parents of different races. As far as nature is concerned, all humans are of different races from all others. Your hair is not precisely identical to your son’s. Neither are your eyes, nose or ears. You have features that are not like his. But these racial differences are fundamentally meaningless (though perhaps socially useful -- i.e. “Hey! Ask the black guy with the kinky blond hair”.) because all these countless billions of races in nature can combine as One Thing – as long as they combine heterosexually. As for homosexual adoptions, humans raise pets and the pets get on fine. This is yet no reason to force human society to claim the pet has certain human rights simply because the pet lives with humans. The very composition of the relationship between pet and human means the relationship is not us. Ditto the homosexual “family.” Your confusion here is due to the fact that, unlike relationships between humans and animals, with homosexuality the participants involved are all human. This disallows your ability to see that despite their being human, nature’s logic demands they combine in a specific way such that the combination itself becomes a member of the human set. If that combination fails to conform to the demands of nature, then it is in no way organically attached to humanity. The very combination of humans itself becomes yet another logical object within the human family, and the character of that object is such that it produces other objects of the same essential sort. Homosexuality has no part of this human structural definition at all. It is foreign to it. Because you cannot see the import of this natural logic in nature, you are bound to accept any sort of combination, however foreign it is to the human set. You must accept polygamy and bestiality, just as you accept homosexuality. You must accept them because you have abandoned the logic of your own natural identity. Try to be brutally honest with yourself and come up with a fundamentally logical reason as to why bestiality is to be rejected by human society. If you ever stumble upon that reason, then the very same reason will condemn homosexuality. The ‘unnaturalness,’ as you put it, of homosexuality is not mine. It is nature’s. Nature has never built any human thing on such an abominable scheme as homosexuality.