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: Neocon who wrote (71315)	8/2/2003 3:33:31 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Homosexuality is inherently repugnant to most heterosexuals, and viewed as deviant. Yes, we are coming at this from two different frames of reference. Coming at it from your perspective I can see how tolerance seems fair, even magnanimous to you. If you try to think your way past the initial "yuck" visceral reaction, though, the reaction dissipates and you don't have to make en effort to tolerate. You just accept. You have to want to do that, though. Sort of like eating your first raw oyster or trekking through your first mud flat. and presses the idea that we cannot really judge anyone's proclivities I still say that, while we can personally judge other people's behavior all we want, it's wrong for our government to treat people as second class citizens so long as their behavior don't damage anyone. MYOB unless someone is in danger is a standard of behavior I'd like to see promoted. As for the symbolism of marriage, I understand the desire to restore it to what, with rose colored glasses, we think it used to be. I've suggested ways to deal with that. We can have religious and equivalent institutions sanction "marriages" and we can have the government either get out of the marriage business altogether or award a "civil union" to couples when they get married and offer it also to couples who don't qualify for marriage. That way the marriage retains its integrity but everyone can participate in family building. What I'm finding increasingly difficult to accept is the status quo, which hypocritically tolerates all sorts of deviations from the ideal of marriage for all sorts of reasons and for all sorts of people but insists on drawing the line at homosexuals. We should all be equal when it comes to our freedom to form families.

To: Neocon who wrote (71315)	8/2/2003 7:59:02 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

However, tolerance is one thing, "normalization" is another. This is an important point, and one that get glossed over too often. Rather than "normalization," I tend to use "approval." One can tolerate without approving. But most homosexuals don't want toleration; they want approval. They want people saying not only that they should be allowed to pursue their chosen lifestyle, but that their chosen lifestyle is just as good as anybody else's. I don't think any person should be required, or even expected, to approve of any lifestyle they don't choose to approve of. I tolerate men who get drunk every evening and yell at their wives, but I don't approve of their lifestyle. I tolerate hunters, but I don't approve of hunting. Toleration and approval are very different things, and should remain different things. Of course, some people will instantly toss out the "homophobic" label, since they love labeling as a simple way of condemning people who don't share theirs. Which is, of course, silly. People can disapprove of marriage without being mariphobic. People can disapprove of politicians without being politifobic. Disapproval of something and irrational fear of it are vastly different things. Of course it suits the homosexual community to pretend that they aren't different, but intelligent people know better.