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 (72001)	8/7/2003 8:51:59 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I think that is legitimate. I think the argument that produced your rule is legitimate, too. Not necessarily, better, but legitimate. :) I just have a problem with the rule. I don't see why it is necessary to establish the rule given that it is hurtful to some while being unnecessary. After all, for want of a rule, it's not like billions of people are going to rush off to fill the vacuum by becoming homosexuals. Insisting on a rule to codify the supremacy of one over the other seems like piling on to me. It legitimizes and gives aid and comfort to those who would bully and suppress. That may not be your intent, but it's the natural effect. We don't go around making the point that it is better to be sighted than blind or ambulatory rather than confined to a wheelchair. It's not nice and it's unnecessary. the electorate prefers to reserve marriage to heterosexuals, even while trying to accommodate homosexuals with civil union Do you not see a conflict between supporting the Constitutional amendment while supporting the establishment of a civil union option? I realize that, in practice, they can coexist. I have no problem with having separate institutions of marriage and civil union. In fact, I proposed that way early in this discussion. But there is a big difference in the tenor of the messages. I doubt that many of those who advocate the amendment want to also create civil unions or that many of the proponents of civil unions would also endorse the amendment. You could probably count the number who advocate both without taking off your shoes. Is your read of that different from mine?

To: Neocon who wrote (72001)	8/7/2003 10:05:50 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"As far as moral substance goes, that is not the judgment sought. I am not alleging that homosexuality is immoral. I am alleging that it is inferior to heterosexuality. In fact, in the comparative form, it may not even be bad, just not as good as heterosexuality" This is silly. You are assessing "superiority" by an arbitrary measure of whether or not or to what degree a trait or condition furthers sexual intercourse to produce children. So is brown hair "inferior" to heterosexuality? Laugh lines? long toes? a preference for chocolate? There are millions of traits which are insufficient on their own to perpetuate the species. But to make that an arbitrary requirement for the judgment of inferior or superior in the discussion of human rights is absolutely deplorable. Is a woman incapable of child bearing "inferior" by virtue of the fact that if all the world had ONLY such people there would be no children produced? Can we logically restrict the rights of marriage by assessing the "superiority" of people as measured by their ability or their desire to reproduce? On that basis males with small penises would also be "inferior" and should perhaps have "civil unions" with narrow-hipped and small breasted women rather than true marriages. If someone wishes to argue that marriage is a sacred union covenanted by God, It would be worth discussing. But the right to marry does not carry an obligation to reproduce nor does it ensure the capacity to reproduce; nor is the desire to reproduce a necessary component of the pledge. Your "thought experiment" is an irrelevency and does not bear on the argument in any way.