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 (74310)	9/10/2003 4:24:48 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Not necessarily, unless you know that. There are many reasons amendments, particularly if passed by the people, can be overturned.

To: Neocon who wrote (74310)	9/10/2003 5:11:36 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

You are speaking, I assume, about what you think is the case. But what about what should be? Seems to me a masseur could make a case for not wanting to massage women. After all, they are different from men. And then there's the arousal thing. That's understandable. But I don't see how one could make the case re homosexuals on any basis other than bigotry, which doesn't cut it. One could say the same thing about people of another race, for example, that it repels him to touch them. "Conscience" only covers so much. How would you justify, or would you, excluding homosexuals?