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 (425148)	7/10/2003 11:16:41 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

Damn, that was good.

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (425148)	7/11/2003 4:53:03 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"But with homosexuality the domino argument is not flawed at all because the very presence of homosexuality means human contrariness. If we accept human contrariness in homosexuality, we necessarily must accept it many other places, like in bestiality and polygamy. Only by inconsistency and arbitrary “community preference” can we deny these other corruptions. Homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality are all of the same specie of human corruption." Here, my friend, is, after all the 'dominos' and 'nature' arguments, the real crux of our differences. You believe that homosexuality is contrary, contrary to nature, contrary to biology, contrary to morality. I do not. I do not believe it is a human corruption, I do not believe it is morally wrong, I do believe that homosexuals can be good people and good members of the community. "You could argue this, but no reasonable person would accept it. Religion itself must be judged. Here is where you fail. You too easily are distracted by objects that allegedly flow from religion when in fact those objects do not necessarily flow from religion at all. But corruption in human identity necessarily does flow from homosexuality." Exactly. Same with homosexuality. You maintain that there is no reasonable link between 'religion' and these corruptions and evils. I maintain that also, although you and others argue the reverse with regards to homosexuality ie homosexuality leads to beastiality and child abuse. This is the key flaw of the domino argument; there must be an established connection between the dominos. I know of no evidence that links homosexuality in itself to child abuse or beastiality. You must not either, since you haven't presented evidence of such a link. "There is indeed a connection between these things. Homosexuality and bestiality are both corruptions of human identity. The proof of it is that should you accept one, there is absolutely no logic allowing you to deny the other. I have demonstrated that even here with you." No, you have not. You've tried to demonstrate it with an argument about being against biology that really didn't go anywhere. Humans engage in a lot of behaviour that 'goes against biology', sexual and non-sexual. Being against our 'scientific biology' is simply not a measure of humanity. In fact, you have narrowly defined our 'biology' as being procreation. There are many sexual acts and many people who engage in sex not for the purpose of procreation. Using these definition, not only are all these people 'anti-nature', but birth control is also necessarily evil. As are people who have had vasectomys or had their tubes tied. Judging a lifestyle by its biological inability to procreate is not a valid argument. "Kevin, these are all subjective determinations that are naturally false. But, because of your right to be willfully false you are free to hold these beliefs. You commit a crime against your nature, but you have no natural right to commit such a crime against others by forcing them to effectively embrace your beliefs here." Well, I'm glad you acknowledge my freedom to hold these beliefs. I ask no one to accept these beliefs, just as I don't ask anyone to accept my particular religious beliefs. THAT is the definition of tolerance. Tolerance is not acceptance; it is (from dictionary.com): "The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others." Read this definition over and over and see if you find the word 'acceptance' anywhere. Once you've done that, reexamine your views of religious and human tolerance. I believe that are government, as the practical representation of society, is responsible for drawing the line between behaviors that are individual rights and harmful to others. Once that line is drawn, it is our duty to tolerate others who hold beliefs that are contrary to ours. As long as families of same-sex partners continue to lose their rights as parents and partners because of intolerance, you'll see people fight for those civil rights.