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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (71293)	8/1/2003 9:02:32 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

Of course, one must also accept that even if there is some genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, that doesn't end the discussion of whether society's approach toward homosexuality should be approval, acceptance without approval, accceptance but with disapproval, or rejection. I'm not arguing that the innate quality of homosexuality warrants the acceptance of gays and homosexual unions. Neo is the one who brought it up. I pointed out that we don't tolerate violence just because it's innate. To the extent that I'm arguing for homosexual marriage, it's based on the premise that it is not harmful to society and therefore there's no good reason to discriminate against a segment of the population. Obviously your choices of approval, disapproval, and rejection suggest that there are other opinions about whether homosexuality is acceptable or not. I obviously think that it is, as long as folks don't scare the horses. I cannot imagine my either approving or disapproving. As long as it's harmless, there's nothing to disapprove. And I'd be hard pressed to see it as beneficial unless we reach a population breaking point. So, it just is, IMO. No reason for me to make a judgment about it at all. I don't know that it's being nurture rather than nature would make any difference. Acting on that thought or desire is a second, entirely distinct, step. I don't think it's reasonable to deny people sex or love or family. Some may be able to do without, but society shouldn't expect it. We can expect people to refrain from hurting other people, and even to forcably restrain them, if necessary, but we can't interfere in such basic needs being met by consenting adults.