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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (543618)	2/21/2004 6:53:55 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

If two women decide to love each other, or two men decide to love each other, and they do this of their own free will is that not human nature? Of course the problem here is in that elastic word “love.” If by it you mean a “love” that is defined by sexual behavior that has no logical attachment to human biological existence, then this “love” is obviously against human nature. I'm a heterosexual myself. All humans are. But why do you think you have the right to regulate someone else's behavior? There is no victim here as in murder, rape or incest. So long as it's sex between two consenting adults, shouldn't we just butt out? This depends upon what you mean by ”butt out.” If homosexuals wish to engage in their lifestyle on their own property, in the privacy of their own rooms, then of course there should be no issue at all. But if they aim to take public law and abuse it such as to force an entire society to acknowledge their lifestyle as “marriage,” then we should by no means ‘butt out.’ No one has the right to force anyone to support what he fundamentally is not. And if two people love each other and wish to commit to each other that should be allowed too. They ought to even be allowed to kill themselves if that is what they wish. Let marriage remain between a man and a woman, for the purpose of raising and protecting a family. Let gays join in civil union to protect their rights too. Civil union is just marriage by another name. There is a better way. Let the people of America vote the matter for themselves. If they wish to allow it, then allow it fully and be done with it. Otherwise, destroy it. It is my hope that we can give America the opportunity to codify the definition of marriage in the Constitution by Amendment. That is what I am fighting for now. I am not really interested in getting the Amendment passed, though, of course that would be a nice bit of icing on the cake. What I really want is to discover in concrete terms the sort of country I live in and what I should do about it. It need not be equal to marriage in every sense, nor could it be, because their union cannot produce children. They could however adopt a family, and so it should be structured to protect any adopted children. They ought not be acknowledged in any way that would force the support of anyone else. Their lives are veritably defined by behavior that is inhuman. Let America decide for herself what she will be. I don't see how allowing such legal arrangements can harm the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. As it is, marriage is essentially perceived as the biological union of two humans, a union that cannot truly be complete unless it takes place in a heterosexual context. We know this intuitively because heterosexuality is completed in each one of us (Biological Mom and Biological Dad is literally fused in each of us). This is why we say a marriage must be sexually consummated before it is valid. Once the marriage is established, we perceive it can never be broken unless Nature Herself breaks it. The basis of this is, once again, human biology. Biological Mom and Biological Dad, as they exist in you, will never change unless Nature Herself changes them by destroying you. Else, Mom and Dad in you will ever remain intact. They are your identity and you are theirs in flesh. These biological bonds are what once held families together against all odds, despite feelings or anything else. That sort of mutual commitment, with fidelity and romantic attachment in the best cases, was understood as “love.” The perception of marriage is now changing. Aided by “no fault” divorce and other cultural influences, marriage is being perceived as something based less on biology and childrearing and more on emotion. So if you feel a deep “luuuuuuv” for someone you marry them. Unfortunately emotions change. So when that deep “luuuuuv” fades, you get divorced and find a new and improved “luuuuuv”. Homosexual marriage is now possible because, society is unwittingly and falsely perceiving that the basis of marriage is no longer biology/identity but “luuuuuv”. The effects have been devastating to families. The change has negatively effected our perceptions and loyalty to each other, to children born and unborn, and to the elderly. Perhaps blacks have suffered from it more than any other people in America. Nevertheless we still perceive some attachment between marriage and biology, and this residual perception could help rescue the institution. But if homosexuals marriage is accepted by our society, it will be an official recognition that no attachment at all need exist between marriage and biology. The break between marriage and biology will be complete. The term “marriage” may still be used to refer to the resulting relationships between people in “luuuuuv,” but the relationships will be so fluid relative to current marriage (not to mention the original concept) that marriage will effectively be dead, along with its social “gluing” effects.