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 (75249)	9/22/2003 12:29:05 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I do not understand on what basis you are assuming a well- planned system of reproduction" One assumes that if evolution had guided the survival of humanity as homosexuals with heterosexual body parts, that reproduction would stem from planing and social/family desires rather than from random impulse. The random impulse assumption would not make any sense. "Your point about over- population is hilariously wrong" There is nothing hilarious abouit it. Most of the world's people have been born to die needlessly in order that the resources of the tribe or group are once again able to sustain the populaton base. The billions of surplus children starving in India and China and Africa and everywhere is not hilarious. Nor is it necessary. It is needless suffering and misery caused by the uneducated and the mindless in doing what comes natural to them. "we would never have flourished as a species without population growth" Nobody has conjectured otherwise. I have only said that the birth of millions of children only to starve to death had nothing to do with population growth. Indeed, overpopulation has often been culled by disease and famine. This very fact speaks to the countless times in which particular communities have outbred their natural resources. Having millions of children sleeping and starving in the streets does nothing to recommend a "flourishing" of civilization, and again...it is not a point of hilarity. "There is no reason to suppose that some males would not show antisocial forms of aggression against other males. It is much more likely to go the other way, in fact." It was not required to be shown. But the heterosexual experience both in society and in prison is at least known and recognised for its aggressiveness and other defects. "Male sexual proclivities practically guarantee insecure domestic relationships." Well, it is true that something like 40% of marriages end in divorce and many of the rest make do with cheating so I will not argue that point. "There is very good reason to be dubious about the attachment of men to their offspring, if the bond is attenuated." During all those years when only remarkable gays such as Wilde, et al were somewhat open...gay fathers took their children to hockey and ballet just as did any other devoted parent. I would agree that the unattached homosexual community is often promiscuous just as the unattached heterosexual community often tries to be so--without an equal success. But none of this is releveant to whether allowing homosexuals to commit their love before their God is a negative thing to be avoided. "I am afraid that you have established nothing that would offset the concerns I have raised" I am unable to discern any legitimacy to your concerns. You have not made the case that continued discrimination against this minority orientation will eradicate it, nor that tolerance of an equality before the law in regards to relationship and marriage would change the ratio in society of homosexuality--or otherwise express anything other than a civilized acceptance of what actually is. In any case your objections are strained and attenuated; and such as they are they have been dealt with.

To: Neocon who wrote (75249)	9/22/2003 2:14:48 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Your point about over- population is hilariously wrong. I recognize that there is some difference of opinion on whether or not the world is over-populated. I know which side of that question you're on. It would seem to me, though, that you would have to find the over-population position at least arguable, even if you don't agree with it, rather than "hilariously wrong."