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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (10711)	10/22/1998 2:11:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<That homosexuality is a choice and believe that most homosexuals are aware of the risks they take by their behavior. And frankly, I don't think it's worth being labeled a "homophobe" by making my views known.>> It's not worth it for most of us. Blackmail wouldn't be blackmail if it didn't come with a price tag. This issue I was wanting to bring up, however, runs far deeper that "homosexual lifestyle." The culture of a college town is one of a brothel. If you don't go for the gusto, you don't assimilate into the normal social structure of your setting. Yet there is an element of personal responsibility that when given up, typically results in one kind of tragedy or another.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (10711)	10/22/1998 2:20:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The person how coined the word homophobe to apply to anyone who doesn't applaud their lifestyle was an absolute genius. Their battle was half won when the culture accepted this word.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (10711)	10/22/1998 2:34:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

bp - I don't think homosexuality is entirely an "event" of choice - but homosexual behavior, like all sexual behavior, is. Too many contributing factors involved, not the least of which is, in some cases, a real lack of attraction to a person of the opposite sex to make a clear cut case either way. I also believe that like all minority positions, for self-validation and in order to survive, the fringe must recruit and attempt to expand the acceptance of its views. This is where mere tolerance normally leads to acceptance. In order to achieve those objectives, the opponents must be vilified and stereotyped, i.e., everyone who objects to homosexuality on religious and moral grounds must be hateful, ergo, the popularization of the term "homophobe" by the media. Again, I go back to truth as the core morality. The truth is homosexuality is counter to normal human nature and homosexual sex is counter to religious doctrine, but because it is so centered around the private, personal pleasure of sex, those who engage in the experimentation with it are certain to become aligned with others who will in order to fend off the condemnation of those who don't. On the other extreme, there are those who feel it is important to prevent the expansion of what they consider to be evil, and that terrorism is an appropriate measure in response to the lack of general condemnation on the part of the majority. Should homosexuals continue to make advances at the expense of the more traditionally moral majority (bad choice of words, nowadays) there will be more of this kind of thing. Unfortunately, this plays into the hands of the moral relativists, who will continue to promote the immoral through the establishment of laws, regulations, etc., which over-protect those who are engaged in immoral activity. Because of the support of those on the fringes, the left is charged with carrying the message, and we will continue to see support for protecting all kinds of immorality work its way through the left toward legislation. JMO Mr. K.