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 (74533)	9/12/2003 11:36:02 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"This is similar to noting the need for compensatory strategies to deal with blindness or deafness lest the individuals affected suffer further harm, although the issue is not of the individual suffering harm, but of the preservation of the species." But their are issues of the individual suffering harm; not as a matter of "having" an orientation but in the suffering, obstacles, opportunities, and consequences it leaves the individual who chooses to live the 'typical' gay life-style. Usually the responsibility (blame) for this is relegated to the straight community....how's that for opening a can of worms? ""Thus, homosexual orientation retains the status of infirmity, while heterosexuality retains primacy as a necessary expedient to propagate.........." Beyond the orientation do we have an issue of infirmity that is either associated with the individual or with effects on community?

To: Neocon who wrote (74533)	9/12/2003 11:39:17 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Because homosexuality is not a universal condition your argument is feckless. Homosexuals do not need to compensate for their propensity lest the species become extinct. Homosexuals are not responsible for the perpetuation of the species no more than are babies. Many people cannot or choose not to make babies. Such a choice is not an infirmity. There are many ways to contribute to human advancement other than through making babies. Nor is there an a priori assumption that any human lives for a purpose higher than herself and her relationships. Certainly, neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals can perpetuate the species forever. Being too young, too old, or disinclined to make babies is not an infirmity. If evolution could speak in human words it might say that people have made too damn many babies and that those who have made no babies or fewer have contributed to less disease, famine, and over-all suffering. In any case, being a monk is not an infirmity, and a vow of silence even though one has the abilty to speak is not an infirmity; and a choice of abstinence even though one has the ability to make babies is not an infirmity. Yes, if all the world were monks, they might indeed choose to "compensate" if they chose to perpetuate the species for awhile. But this in no way relates to their value as people, or to any reflection on how healthy they are.

To: Neocon who wrote (74533)	9/12/2003 2:54:08 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

although the issue is not of the individual suffering harm, but of the preservation of the species. I think you are too dismissive of the difference between individual compensation and species compensation. To my mind, they're not parallel at all. And as far of the risk of the species going extinct if some people are homosexual or choose not to have children is concerned, like have you been out in traffic lately? I just got back from lunch. Forgot it was Friday prayers day. Oh, the pain of it all. Extinction from anything short of a cataclysm seems even less likely to me than the existence of a deity with a white beard sitting on a cloud.