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: Lane3 who wrote (71404)	8/4/2003 11:45:33 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

This is what I said: Homosexuality is inherently repugnant to most heterosexuals, and viewed as deviant. I never taught my son any negative attitudes towards gays, and had to teach him not to express his natural revulsion when the issue came up. It is accepted because it is considered beyond their control, and not very harmful, if at all, to society. However, tolerance is one thing, "normalization" is another. If we permit official gay marriage, we are saying that homosexuality is a matter of indifference in the establishment of a sanctioned union, and therefore that it is just a matter of taste. This goes too far against the grain of those who do not regard it as a matter of taste, and presses the idea that we cannot really judge anyone's proclivities.......... I made a factual observation, not a denunciation, in support of the idea that there would be a certain social impact in ramming complete acceptance down everyone's throats. I explicitly said that I did not teach my son contempt of homosexuals, and had to teach him tolerance. I said that society more or less accepts gays because they are widely regarded as having a strong, unchangeable orientation, and because they are not per se harmful to society, which would tend to moot the question of immorality for most of us. Elsewhere, I noted that I had no personal problem with homosexuals, although I share the characteristic of not wanting too graphic a portrayal of homosexual acts. I have had many gay friends and acquaintances over the years. I even had a gay roommate in college. We were cool, as long as he accepted I was not. I also, though, said elsewhere that these feelings that heterosexuals usually have are not unreasonable, and that they should not be treated as mere prejudice just because they may be controverted. You seemed to concede that they were reasonable enough. Let me ask you something. Do you think it is a grave insult to the immigrant community that the Constitution requires that the President be native born? A case may be made against exclusiveness, and one might argue it is unfair, since it discriminates in the availability of a government benefit, but there is a rationale for it, and I doubt that anyone would hold that it is necessary to change. How about the age requirements in the Constitution, for example, that Senators be 35? Is this age discrimination? Should Social Security be available to anyone, or only to seniors, certain dependants, and some disabled? How about a driver's license? Does the state have some right to determine the conditions under which it is bestowed, as long as they are rational and not merely malign forms of discrimination? It is obvious that a blind person cannot drive, but what about a profoundly deaf person? The inability to hear ambient sound and respond to cues is quite dangerous, and in most jurisdictions it is illegal to use headphones while driving. Society has a right to withhold certain privileges on a rational basis, and the fact of different treatment does not automatically mean that it unfair. Nor does the existence of a constituency for change mean that they are bound to win. Perhaps they may, in the long run, by persuasion, perhaps not. Anyway, I am close to having my fill of this, but I will read your response, and let you know what I decide........