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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (94660)	11/7/2008 5:47:21 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541375

And attempting to set the definition legally in stone is actually the aggressive action, now that you say it like that. Definitions are constantly in flux. Language and words evolve. Fighting to maintain a definition is a symbolic way of sending the message to a group that" you don't qualify. You aren't included".

To: Lane3 who wrote (94660)	11/7/2008 6:26:27 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541375

< Lots of people preferred not to have to interact with blacks. Until they were forced to.> The "people" who were forced were doing so in an institutional context. There is still no law that makes anyone personally invite black people to their family barbecue and I'm sure some people never will. I'm wondering if there could even be a law that required a church to admit other races, even now, unless it was stupidly overt. The only penalty that I think could be assessed on them is a loss of their tax exemption. There are many religious institutions even now where equal rights are not supported - e.g., rights of women to govern or have any say for that matter in any significant ecclesiastic matters. But actually, I question the entire basis of tax exemption for churches. The rationale is, at best, flimsy. That is probably not a mainstream opinion, though.

To: Lane3 who wrote (94660)	11/7/2008 7:33:44 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541375

<there is no victim.> If someone is a victim, there is generally redress through civil action. If someone cheats on their partner you could argue that there is a "victim". The question is "Should the government prevent all victimization?" Clearly the answer is "No." If you and I exchange presents for 10 years, and I personally decide to stop after accepting your gift on year 11, there could be a victim. Should it be a crime? Not really. <initiative that asks me to legitimize adultery, fornication, homosexuality and bestiality> This is a straw man in my opinion. Having no law is different that "legitimizing". We should have no law on marriage if it is religiously based. If it is religious - it is protected by the Constitution and needs no other law. As for bestiality, I've always been amused that someone can kill an animal and eat it but can't have sex with it. What if the animal doesn't mind? There are public health issues if the animal is later to be sold as food, but short of that... I accept that my neutrality on this matter is off-center, but unless the police respond to calls of yowling from JoeBob's house, or he's doing it in full public view, I want the government to be out of it. First, I'm a civil libertarian. Second, I want laws to be created to prevent an immediate foreseeable and direct public harm. Third, minors have to be protected. Pretty much everything else should be legal (to first order). Other laws promoting the "public good and general welfare" need to be scrutinized closely with special regard for other rights.

To: Lane3 who wrote (94660)	11/7/2008 9:51:51 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 541375

Karen - You make several very good points in that post. Brava. - Allen

To: Lane3 who wrote (94660)	11/8/2008 10:47:39 AM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541375

That's a odd grouping. Apples and oranges. By your grouping it looks like you're thinking about this in terms of "weird sex." It's not "my" grouping and it's not a reflection of what I think is "weird". It's the various sexual behaviors God asked mankind to refrain from. The question for a person of faith then is why. Others are thinking in terms of the rights of citizens to do their own thing as long as they don't hurt anyone. I don't think you have to worry about bestiality. You have a victim there. In adultery you have a victim. With fornication and homosexuality among consenting adults there is no victim. With fornication and homosexuality among consenting adults, perhaps there IS a victim(s). The participants themselves. This, for me, is the answer to the why question. Thus I would not want to vote for anything that legitimized a behavior I believed that was, on balance, harmful for the participants.