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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (1667)	2/11/2004 1:57:52 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Most days, I'd have a hard time viewing Pat Buchanan as anything other than a self righteous hypocrite. According to Pat, his own personal prejudices should be the law of the land, which in my book makes him look pretty silly while watching him go about bashing the concept of dictatorship. The whole gay marriage nonsense is a tempest in a tea cup. Who cares? There was a gay couple who bought a house together across the street from where I used to live. They had the nicest looking yard on the block, were always courteous and polite, and my only beef is I think they could have made an extra effort to keep their dogs quiet at night. In other words, they were good neighbors, and whatever lifestyle they chose to practice behind closed doors had absolutely no impact on the surrounding community whatsoever. Would granting them a marriage license have made a speck of difference? Not even a little bit, and refusing to allow them to marry obviously didn't turn them into heterosexuals. The problem with the Pat Buchanan types is they believe it is the function of government to enforce their own personal prejudices. Women should remain virginal until they are married, and if a woman should "sin", the state should have jurisdiction over her womb. Birth control and abortion should be illegal, because Catholic priests say so, and if it wasn't for all those unwanted children produced as a result, the "holy" men wouldn't have any babies to rape. Sexual conduct should always conform to their own prejudices, and everything else should be regulated and prohibited. I'm not gay, and since I don't have a womb, I'll never be in a position where abortion is an option. My view of "sin" is causing another person injury when that person has done nothing to cause injury to me. Do I have a right to deny another person whatever joy they might gain from a ceremony, for no other reason than their preferences are different than my own? Do I have a right to dictate to women I don't even know how their bodies must be used, regardless of the hardships placed on those women? I don't think so. Not only does it fall into the category of what I believe to be "sin", the greater harm is that anytime a person attempts to deny liberty to another, their own liberty is endangered. The whims of social change can be rather dramatic. The practice of condoning the infringement of the liberty of others sets a precedent for a time when all liberty may be threatened by the whims of fortune.