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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (67677)	11/24/2004 6:04:54 PM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

For all the reasons you just mentioned, you certainly made the case why the GOP should NOT be trying to tell homosexuals that they should not have access to the same rights in the tax code that every other American has. So either they need to remove the term "married filling jointly" to something more generic, and stop telling people how to live their lives if they are clueless (as you assert) if homosexuality is a biological function or not.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (67677)	11/24/2004 8:12:51 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

re: gay marriage: 1. "your hypothesis is testable". In the sense of a double-blind controlled experiment, no. At least, not in humans. Would you accept data from chimpanzees or lions? 2. Among the social mammals, there are numerous examples of adults who do not breed, yet are members of stable family groupings. This is the functional equivalent of homosexuality. In many pack animals, only the alpha female and alpha male breed. The other adults help raise the alpha's children. This works, genetically, because all the adults are first-degree relatives of the alphas. 3. Interpreting the scientific evidence, is like an inkblot test. You tell me how you interpret the data, and I can reliably tell you what your politics are, and make a good guess about what church you go to. Southern Baptists look at the data, and say it proves homosexuality is a choice. Unitarians look at the exact same data, and conclude the opposite. Here's what that proves: everyone made up their minds before they looked at any data. 4. The message gays get: You got AIDS because you are promiscuous, so your disease is a result of sin, a personal failing. This is, in fact, what everyone was told about epidemic disease, during the time period known as the Dark Ages. When the plague or smallpox would come around and kill off 10-30% of the population, the priests would tell everyone they hadn't prayed enough, or hadn't tithed enough to the church. Or something. Now, only gays get told their disease is the result of sinful choices. Progress. 5. So, what's the solution to promiscuity in gays? Logically, we should be promoting the opposite of promiscuity. Society (church and state) should be promoting longterm mutually exclusive sexual relationships. The short name for this: marriage. Can you see the double-bind here, for gays? 6. The other choice is abstinence. There is overwhelming evidence that all human beings are sexual, and need to express it, one way or another. Make it illegal, refuse to give it sanction, and it doesn't go away. It just goes underground. This is true, whether you are talking about gays, Catholic priests, or teenagers. 7. The "handful of people in black robes" are supposed to protect us all, from the dictatorship of the majority. Otherwise, any 51% of the people can vote to enslave the other 49%. This is what the Communists had in mind, with their idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "democratic centralism". The majority should not be allowed to infringe the rights of the minority, except for some overriding social good. What social good is promoted, by not allowing gay marriage, and thereby promoting promiscuity in gays?