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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (154210)	12/16/2004 2:47:16 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Yep...seems to me the intolerant ones are the one who try to shove the homosexual agenda down the throats of those who do not accept it.... Religion teaches that you love the sinner even though you don't love the sin....all persons are worthy of respect....nothing wrong with that POV methinks... J.

To: Neocon who wrote (154210)	12/16/2004 2:49:28 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The "legitimate" controversy, as you like to call it, is a religious controversy, and has no place in the laws of a secular government. If we were governed by "Chris-ria"- the Christian equivalent of Sharia- then I guess the legal expression of repugnance for homoseuxal lifestyles would be in line with the governing "law" of our society. But as I said before, religious bigotry, no matter how traditional it might be, really has no place in America- at least not until we really DO have Chris-ria. What is wrong is excluding people legally. As I said before, you have every right to exclude them personally, and put them, and their "relationships," on whatever "footing" you like- but you are arguing that the state must be involved, so that the "footing" of these homosexual unions may be made clear to all (you could just make them were a scarlet "H"). Some people might have said (and did say) that it was wrong to force whites to ride on buses with blacks, and that it was better not to force the issue, and why did those blacks have to ride in the front of the bus anyway?

To: Neocon who wrote (154210)	12/16/2004 3:41:52 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The understatement of the year: <"I don't think he listens enough to his uniformed officers."> _________________________________________ Lott: Rumsfeld Should Go, at Some Point 2 hours, 36 minutes ago Politics - U. S. Congress BILOXI, Miss. - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should be replaced sometime in the next year, Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record) says. Reuters Photo "I'm not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld," Lott told the Biloxi Chamber of Commerce (news - web sites) on Wednesday. "I don't think he listens enough to his uniformed officers." story.news.yahoo.com