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 : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (14195)	4/18/1998 11:26:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Actually, after the things you have said about homosexuals already at SI, calling them bitter, neurotic and uptight would be damning them with faint praise!!! Really? Could you draw my attention to where I've insulted homosexuals? I'm really not into gratuitous insults, and I think if I have been gratuitously critical of the personalities of homosexuals, I would think that my modem would have melted down by now from the damnation I would have received. So far, just the most timid expressions of disapproval from a personal morality and religious viewpoint has been enough to spark fairly vehement responses. Again, could you tell me where I've ever even referenced personality traits of homosexuals?

To: Grainne who wrote (14195)	4/18/1998 11:47:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

It is not that you are saying a promiscuous person would be a poor employee, but that you can discriminate against them arbitrarily which concerns me. Christine, this job discrimination thing is just a smokescreen, and you know it, and I know it. You know that I've said many times that I believe it is wrong to wish ill fortune on anyone. That would include depriving homosexuals the right or ability to work, from which comes money, job satisfaction, etc., and the other benefits of a free society. The whole thing about hiring someone for work "in the home" came from my statement that I MAY discriminate in that situation from a legal standpoint. This was to show that the law recognizes the sanctity of a person's personal home in a big way. And by extension, it follows that the law recognizes that we are actually free about whom we form personal relationships with. I don't have to admit ANYONE into my home that I don't feel like admitting. This was ALL because I immensely disliked to be treated in a patronizing way. It has been implied from the start, and even you have said it several times, that if I even believe in my mind that homosexuality or homosexual acts are wrong, then automatically I am discriminating. That's wrong, and you know it, and I don't like being patronized by efforts to convince me that I am harming people by simply believing something is not a good thing. I can call it sin. Sin is a religious term, and for those who aren't religious, why would they be concerned with what term I use to describe something I disapprove of? It's incredible that so many people have so easily capitulated to the politically correct dogma that nobody has any right to have moral beliefs of any kind anymore which may connotate "disapproval", and if they hold such beliefs, why, they're obviously bigots and hate-mongers. It's this kind of gratuitous nonsense that really lights my fire. That people even dare to put out such nonsense is intellectually insulting just for starters.