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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DayTraderKidd who wrote (7926)	12/26/2006 1:04:02 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

"Infiltration of the government" implies that they are the enemy gaining control by stealth. It implies that the action is evil, and you use it as evidence of evil. That's circular reasoning. Not supporting gay marriage, doesn't amount to "anti-gay". Not supporting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, isn't "anti-stem cell research".

To: DayTraderKidd who wrote (7926)	12/27/2006 10:45:27 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15987

How do you square that statement with the rise of the evangelican right in our own country. I am referring to there anti gay, anti stem cell research, infiltration of the government and the military, jesus camps etc... Believe me, I'm no fan of evangelicals who perceive that they are somehow "special" (due to their belief in the rapture), or how they beleive they can legislate morality, using the law as a coercive force in society. And with regard to being "anti-gay", they often display an attitude of intolerance, rather than love. Most Christians find the concept of marriage pertaining to those incapable of monogamous relationships for the purpose of having children to be a dilution of the fundamental foundation of society, as well as an attack on family values. People get married for love of one another, and as a by-product, children are born into a nuclear family. Marriage is a religious institution, created by religion, as a encouragement to creating nuclear families, and a deterrence to sexual practices that result in polygamous behavior (herding) and children being born to a multitude of fathers. And whether you agree, or not, that people should have the right to marry whoever they want, you must recognize that marriage is an institution, created out of the religious belief that there is a social interest in encouraging men and women to bond together and procreate to replenish/increase the population in an organized and socially redeeming manner. But the Gay left would have you believe that two same-sex individuals have the right to be "married", and to overcome biological obstacles of our species (male-female reproduction) by using donor sperm and surrogate mothers. They would have you believe that our children should be taught that homosexuality is a "natural" alternative sexual "choice".. A valid "third sexuality", if you will. I happen to agree with Christians that encouraging and facilitating same-sex families is detrimental and confusing to the upbringing of children. I don't think it should be taught, or validated, in our schools. Children are confused enough with their sexuality, without becoming even more confused by someone telling them that engaging in relationships that exclude the notion of love being manifested by procreation of off-spring. It's not that I'm intolerant of gays. They have a right to live together, and I even believe that gay couples should be able to carry their "spouses" on health and life insurance. Amd I also believe they should have the same legal rights in divorce as married couples. But all of this can be accomplished by civil union paperwork that publicly asserts the nature of their relationship via "civil union" without insulting the institution of marriage. Of course, I will hear the well-worn responses that male-female marriages occur all the time with no intent of bearing children. But I argue that there is still the potential of children being born and that their relationship falls in line with the higher, biologically mandated by nature, inherent in our species. As for anti-stem cell research, I have no problem with that. But why focus on stem-cell research from aborted fetuses which offends the morality of many religious individuals who believe that abortion is the taking of life? Why not focus on non-fetal stem cell research which takes stem cells from the individual seeking treatment? Logic dictates that stem cells from the patient are likely to be more accepted by the patient, just as we see with both blood transfusions and organ transplants (within genetic lines). As for your spurious comments about infiltrating the government and military, I would point you to the fact that this is exactly what Christians perceive about the Gay Left. They see infiltration of our institutions, and especially our educational systems, as well as Hollywood. They perceive an attempt by the Gay Left to brainwash society into believing that same-sex relationships are "natural" and biological norm. And I'm sorry.. if God, or "Mother Nature" wanted same-sex relationships to exist, they would have the ability to procreate. Biologically speaking, homosexuality is a genetic "dead-end". Were all people homosexual, there would be no children being born (at least not without external intervention) and no mixing of our DNA. So.. with regard to marriage, it's a religious institution that has, over time, been integrated into our society by legal affirmation. But same-sex couples have no right to call their relationships "marriages" under that law. Permit them to have civil unions? Yes. But call it marriage? No. Just my opinon. And one thing you really overlook about the Christian Right, which might surprise you, is that they are increasingly becoming conservationists and environmentally active. There is an increasing belief making it way throughout evangelical churches that the earth is the creation of God and that Christians have an obligation to be "good stewards" of that creation. nationalcenter.org In sum.. I resent Christians, or any other religion, believing that they can coercively (or violently) thrust their religion and morals upon society. But THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT to effect spirtual and moral change by citing their logical and moral arguments. And if the "pro-gay" factions can provide a scientifically (biologically) sound logical argument as to the benefit of society promoting same-sex relationships, then so be it. But I think that they will have a difficult time producing one. Pardon the off-topic rambling.. Hawk