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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charliss who wrote (19386)	3/28/1998 6:11:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 108807

Charliss, when I said, Homosexuals do not require, or are otherwise waiting for, my approval for whatever they want to do in the privacy of their own bedroom, obviously., may I humbly suggest that you have not been following the discussion closely enough. What I said was exactly what I intended: We'll have to back up a little. First off, for the sake of argument and this supposition, let's just assume that homosexuality is purely genetic and unchangeable. By my personal religious beliefs, if I were to "discover" I was a homosexual myself, then according to my beliefs, the only acceptable course would be to not have homosexual sex. This isn't an argueable point from my religious beliefs. Now then, some have suggested that this belief is unnecessarily cruel. Some may think so. I do not. I have other religious beliefs that some people may also think are unnecessarily cruel. I'm not obligated to share those beliefs, but I will if necessary. So my statement with which you found exception to was addressing this issue. I, by my beliefs, am not preventing or harming or otherwise hindering others from practicing whatever they belief is acceptable to them. Therefore, I can believe, as part of my religious beliefs that homosexual sex is wrong, and I'm NOT "condemning" anyone else to a "loveless life", as was suggested, unless you. Let me put it another way: Do the beliefs of Nuns and Priests preclude you from living your life as you see fit? Of course not. Dwight, were we to but even briefly be able to step outside the confines of our belief systems, we would not be able to see many things that we had supposed to exist. For example, there would no longer be homosexuality, not even heterosexuality. No fear, no sense of scarcity, no need for power. No need to be right, and no tolerance. In their absence would appear Love, manifest in its abundance and all the countless ways in which it particularizes itself. What a trip! This would be true prayer, would it not? Are you saying a true prayer would be to step outside our belief systems? That, unfortunately, is impossible and wholley inappropriate for our time on this earth. Humans, without rules, boundaries or guidance, tend towards inflicting harm on each other. Surely anyone who has studied and read virtually anything knows this. You don't even have to read history books, you can simply pick up the newspaper. We have pre-teens committing murder. The world historical stage is filled with atrocities committed by all manner of people, from those flying the banner of "Christian", to the Aztecs and Baal worshippers making human sacrifices to various Gods. The paradise you describe is heaven, which is different that the reality of this life.

To: Charliss who wrote (19386)	3/29/1998 2:16:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 108807

Hi Charliss, I wanted to respond to some other things in your post: Any whole relationship, based in love and without any thought of power, is a sensible place in the midst of an unpredictable world where the greatest threats to sanity are fear and the drive for power. Charliss, while that sounds nice, I don't go along with the word "any". There are lines that civilized people draw when talking in terms of a sexual relationship. No, I'm certainly not obsessed by sex in a relationship, but it is relevant to the divisive subject at hand, which specifically is that some people desperately wish that some ministers in churches would stop preaching, and individuals attending those churches would back down from believing, that an active homosexual relationship is wrong from a religious perspective. If you do not have that wish, then my comments may not seem relevant to what you say above in italics. Do you then, have lines where your personal moral credo forbids crossing, in regard to what may not be appropriate sexual behavior, even "wrong"? If so, then I would be interested to hear them. And if you do have those boundaries, then I simply ask that you also respect my right to have my own personal moral credo boundaries, however restrictive they may seem to someone else. No, I do not push my credo on others, and don't otherwise harm or discriminate against others with different boundaries than my own. For instance, do you personally feel that for yourself, the following "whole relationship, based in love and without any thought of power" are within your boundaries of acceptable: a) Between a mother and her over age 21 son (relationship includes protected sex). b) Between over age 21 biological sisters (includes sex). c) Between over age 21 biological brother and sister (includes protected sex). I don't need to go on, and I hope you see my point. Not all loving relationships are considered "whole" by everyone. People have limits, even if there are no obvious victims, or person's seeking power. My personal limits (it doesn't matter if they are religious based or simply a personal moral credo) preclude the above mentioned relationships, and others, in addition to homosexual sex. This does not make me any less of a person than you, and I have no obligation to change my views to suit your or someone else's personal beliefs. re Much of this wholeness is defined and felt as a compelling desire to share the fact of the wholeness itself with the rest of the world one lives in. To deny or limit, or to argue against the full and forthright expression of such a relationship because the fundamentals of the relationship are thought to be wrong according to a particular belief system is to deny and argue against the infinite nature of Love itself. What are you referring to as "the full and forthright expression?" Were you assuming that I am against freedom of speech, or some such? I'm confused here as to what you are referring to. I have had a homosexual tell me in person that he was gay, and I didn't in any way "deny or limit, or argue against" his expression of that. I did kind of wonder why he felt compelled to tell me, since we had never before talked at all about anything. Was there something else (some other full and forthright expression) you might be thinking about? You seem to have some assumptions about biases I may have, so I would like to know what those assumptions are. re This interest in power, motivated by fear, is not always raw and obvious. Often, it is sophisticated and presents itself as a kind of enlightenment. For example, one may state ones tolerance of homosexuality with the magnanimity that permits homosexual couples to share bedrooms and yet denies them full and forthright access to the other levels of civilized living that heterosexual couples take for granted. This limitation is said to be an argument against "special rights," when in truth it is an argument for special rights. This is not sane, for it is not the way of Love. It is the way of fear and the need for power that arises out of it. I think you are insinuating things above that require an active imagination. I have no interest in power. I simply wish to be left in peace with my personal beliefs, and not have, for instance, you insinuate that I have my beliefs because I have an interest in power. Come on, get a grip Charliss. I have to admit this is a new approach; nonetheless it didn't work. I have stated many times that in no way is it appropriate to hate, harm or otherwise deny employment to someone based on their being gay or straight or somewhere in between. I feel kind of dumb to keep having to repeat this, but I feel that I must.

To: Charliss who wrote (19386)	3/29/1998 3:37:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Also Charliss, when you say to me, >Why do you assume that homosexuality is about what happens in the bedroom? Is that what heterosexuality is all about too? What happens in the bedroom is but a part of any whole relationship., When in the very next sentence after the words of mine in the post that you responded to and referenced, I said: Loveless? Come on! Sex isn't everything. Certainly a person can enjoy very close, intimate, loving relationships with another special person without having sex. Perhaps you should slow down in your reading before jumping to conclusions.