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 (425986)	7/12/2003 7:10:26 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Respond to of 769670

"Not only as it pertains to procreation. The fact is, every single one of our cells is imprinted with the genetic contributions of exactly one man and exactly one woman. Heterosexuality is literally present in every cell of your body. It is literally an organic part of your most fundamental construction and nature. There is no homosexuality here at all – and that is objectively apparent. Homosexuality is naturally foreign to fundamental human identity" Are you saying that only the behaviors that can be traced back to a biological 'genetic contribution' are natural? If so, where is the gene for writing? thinking? loving? dreaming? I assert that your narrow definition of what is 'natural' is simply a convenient way of excluding homosexuality from the realm of 'acceptable' morality. When, in fact, a 'nature' argument can be used to exclude many human behaviors that are not (at least not yet) linked back to some biology. (Btw: I know there are researchers who are attempting to link biology to homosexuality; if they found such a link, I suppose you'd have to say that the morality of homosexuality was now acceptable). "Nature, what materially exists, is all there is pal. There is no such thing as "spirit", "soul" or magic. You treat behaviors as if they are magical things that reign above nature. Behaviors do not materially exist in nature of themselves, but are only the movements of materially extant bodies acting upon one another. Some of these movements can be such that they run contrary to the material existence of the organisms from which they flow. To discover when this occurs we must first discover an organism's fundamental material nature (i.e. fundamental identity), then judge its actions against our findings. If the actions have integrity with the organism’s material identity, those actions are “natural,” since they logically flow from the extant nature. If not, the actions are “unnatural,” since they run counter to this nature. Homosexuality underlies not a single human on earth. Heterosexuality underlies all humans and objectively so. Complete the thing from there…" A curious argument from someone that I had judged as being non-secular; an almost humanist argument. :) There is no spirit or soul? There is nothing that separates man from other animals? There is no extra spark of consciousness that cannot be biologically explained? We move only by natural instinct, and do not make our own choices? I happen to believe that a supreme being did grant something 'extra' to us as human beings. One consequence of that 'something extra' is compassion; they ability to empathize and act to correct the pain and suffering of others. I do not believe this 'something extra' was granted biologically. Therefore, I do not believe that we are limited by our biology; it is not what defines us entirely, but merely a starting point. I have no opinion about polygamy. I suppose if a particular culture made a strong argument that it was part of their heritage or being to engage in polygamy, they might have a strong case. Who am I to dictate to them that a family unit must be a man and a woman? In today's society, family units can consist of a number of variations, and still serve the basic purpose: love, support, values, and the ability and desire to raise good, healthy, morally strong children. Homosexuals can indeed have families, although one partner would be more like a stepfather/stepmother. Are you saying that families where both parents are not the biological parents are not 'moral' or 'acceptable' to you? People who adopt? Stepparents? Single parents? Why arbitrarily exclude same-sex parents based on their lack of contribution of genetic material to their children? "But we are not talking here simply of men. We are talking unions of men. The unions you accept are foreign to man, and for that reason it is a natural crime to force humans to ‘acknowledge and respect’ them. You may accept them if you wish, but you have no right in nature to force anyone else to accept them." YOu have not shown how anyone is 'forcing' anything onto you. You can choice to ignore, even silently disdain, all homosexuals. However, you cannot choice to deprive them of the rights that the founding fathers saw as self-evident (to the point of nearly not even bothering to include a list of them). "That is not the real issue. The real issue concerns whether you have the natural right to employ the might of government to force humans to respect that which is inhuman. You have no such right. Arrogating to yourself such rights is a severe crime against human nature." Well, we'll just have to see what happens. I do believe that the SC court ruling opens up the possibility of their considering the issue of same-sex marriage. Decriminalization of homosexuality would seem to remove the previous blockage to such a ruling. That, and how/if a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, will be the next series of battles. In the meantime, homosexual couples will continue to raise their children, and try to explain to them why they do not enjoy the same rights as other couples. Sometimes it is a long road to civil rights.