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: Steve Dietrich who wrote (544408)	2/23/2004 8:08:07 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Respond to of 769670

Will the doctors who manipulate the child's DNA be married? No, they will be Gods, High Priests at the very least.

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (544408)	2/23/2004 8:09:01 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

You're trying to say it's morally wrong without using those words so you redefine what it means to live according to nature. Exactly. Because JP knows that the morality argument fails miserably, because we are not a theocracy. So he and others attempt to argue a pseudo-scientific approach, but do a poor job. They should stick to arguing scripture, and leave science to the scientists.

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (544408)	2/24/2004 1:29:45 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 769670

You're attempting to redefine nature and marriage to suit your tautology. You are trying to go Ignorant again. There is no tautology here. There is a biological pattern, an identity in our DNA, since exactly two genetic identities comprise it. The sources of those identities are TWO: exactly one man and exactly one woman - heterosexual. That is the essential sexual identity of all humans. It is our right to live in accord with that natural sexual identity. No one has a right to force us toward ANYTHING contrary to it, certainly not something so inhuman as homosexuality. Murder is in fact natural to humans... Very well then, apply murder to all humans and let us see what we get. Murder is quite clearly a principle contrary to humanity, not natural to it. Some humans may murder, but because that behavior is clearly contrary to humanity, we PUNISH for it. ALL civilized societies do so. You are just too shallow-minded to understand this. The same is true with homosexuality, it's natural because it exists in nature. Murder exists too (grin), as well as suicide. The issue here does not concern whether a behavior exists in nature. The issue concerns whether a behavior is reflective of human nature (or rather fundamental biological identity). Clearly murder is not, and neither is homosexuality. No human is predicated on murder (duh, doode!), and no human is predicated upon homosexuality. All are contrary to human nature. You're trying to say it's morally wrong without using those words so you redefine what it means to live according to nature. I don't define anything, and you know it. I point out what is right under your own friggin' nose and in your own perverted body. You just do not wish to accept it because it completely destroys so many of your illusions. It is time to see the real world, Steven. You now claim it is our nature to live according to your understanding of biblical morality, A lie, Steven. Show where I claimed this. You can't because I never did. Even the essential fact of nature itself condemns you. Your own nature condemns you. I need not refer to "biblical morality." that to live any other way is to go against nature when in reality it only goes against your understanding of biblical morality. False. The fact of your sexual identity is objective. We only need to acknowledge that a woman's bioidentity and a man's bioidentity was absolutely required to form essential you. That is what you are. You have a right to now live a well-integrated life, one that is in accord with what you fundamentally are in nature. No one has the right to force you toward anything contrary (like homosexuality) to what you are. "You cannot go against nature, because if you do, go against nature, that's part of nature too..." Then all is acceptable to us, simply because it exists in nature. Dum dum logic. The issue concerns identity. There are things and behaviors that are expressed through nature, but that are contrary to our identity. To be civilized is to know what your nature is and live according to it. You may not wish to do this, and that is your choice. But you do not have the right in nature to force me to live against my identity. What if in the near future, copulation ceases to be the main method of reproduction. Copulation is not the issue here. Identity, fundamental bio-identity is. What if science evolves to the point where a child's DNA is no longer the combination of its parents' DNA That is absurd. If the child's DNA came from some source, ANY source, then that source is obviously the child's parents. Duh! what if cloning and bioscience allow us to alter a child's DNA and that becomes a normal form of procreation? If the materials used in cloning are products of one man and one woman, then the implications are exactly the same. Cloning is merely copied heterosexuality. Big deal. The implications are no different than in the case of identical twins. Duh! Then what happens to your tautology? It is no mere tautology and you know it. That is precisely why you asked your questions. My view stands inexorably true as ever. Will the doctors who manipulate the child's DNA be married? The natural marriage is between the two bio-informational sources that caused the DNA in the first place. Merely because someone takes that fusion of DNA (the natural marriage) and copies it doesn't mean the copier is part of the marriage.