What's so wrong with homosexuality?

[Sobbastchianno]

Yes, for genetic reasons, I do have a problem with incest.

Hey, us queers are exempt from that stuff! I'll feck my brother all I want! shame i dont have a brother :\

Koji,

I have five brother (three surviving aside from myself). I am also a twin. Even though pregnancy wouldn't result, the idea of having sex with ANY of my brothers is repulsive to me, though you do bring up an interesting point. I still don't think that siblings should be allowed to marry, as they already have a familial relationship.

[Sobbastchianno]

Yes, for genetic reasons, I do have a problem with incest.

Hey, us queers are exempt from that stuff! I'll feck my brother all I want! shame i dont have a brother :\

Koji,

I have five brother (three surviving aside from myself). I am also a twin. Even though pregnancy wouldn't result, the idea of having sex with ANY of my brothers is repulsive to me, though you do bring up an interesting point. I still don't think that siblings should be allowed to marry, as they already have a familial relationship.

[kojikun]

well you do with your brothers what you like. and i think marriage is stupid to begin with, so fooey i say!

[Sobbastchianno]

Koji,

Cool, if you think marriage is stupid, heterosexuals will be happy to tell you that you don't need to participate. If you thought marriage was something you wanted, they would tell you that you can't because you are anti-family.

Don't you love it when you are told you are anti-family, then forbidden the legal vehicle used by them to form families. Talk about having it both ways.

[MKSheppard]

And what does it say about this nation's (quite hypocritical) civil rights that homosexuals don't enjoy the same freedoms as heterosexuals, such as the right to matrimony?

I don't give a shit, seeing as Rock Island Armory managed to win a case
against the ATF, and a court said that the 1986 FOPA MG Ban was invalid,
and that Rock Island could start selling new-build MGs to the public, but
the ATF refuses to even look at the paperwork...

Or that every case involving the 2nd Amendment that reaches the level
of the Supremes is turned down on appeal, while every case involving
certain liberal hotbutton issues such as affirmative action, homosexuality,
etc is pounced upon by the Supremes...

So really, I don't give a damn, about civil rights for homosexuals. All
I want is my new build M-16A2 for $750, not $6,000

http://www.giwersworld.org/mgiwer/mgiwer5/rockisla.html

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/f ... island.txt

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/f ... dalton.htm

[Traceroute]

What bugs me is that the American government is not allowed to discriminate ... Yet marriage is a clear cut case where that is exactly what is happening. (And before the many, many responses to that, yes, I know there are many other points where the US government does discriminate even though it shouldn't.)

Thanks to the equal opportunity act, no company or agency is supposed to discriminate on race, gender, or creed - gender being the key point in this case. The US government should not restrict tax benefits, death benefits, etc, etc, from same-sex partners according to their own policy, but that is exactly what's happening. That's the kind of hypocrisy that really, really pisses me off.

On the upside, more insurance companies and local governments are accepting "domestic partners" as basically common-law marriage ... it's not really official, but such relationships deserve recognition. Hopefully, this change in attitude will allow same-sex marriages sooner rather than later. I think it's a symptom of progress, at least.

As far as my personal opinion about sexuality, well, I'll try anything once, but I am in a committed, exclusive relationship which I wouldn't give up for the world. That's why I have PORN!! (And the GF doesn't know where it is )

On the upside, I know I'll get a tax break.

[Sobbastchianno]

Since we have hit on the subject of marriage and domestic partnerships, as a homosexual male, I have a few things to say.

I don't like the whole concept of so-called domestic partnership laws, ordinances, etc. It creates an "other than" system, which is viewed by many as a "special right," and rightfully so, since it is a special right.

Having said that, I am all for the legalization of marriage for same sex partners. I am not stating that a church is obligated to marry such a couple. Churches are free to refuse to marry any straight couple they choose, so I would imagine that the same should hold true for same-sex couples as well.

Where the STATE is concerned, same sex couples should be allowed to obtain a license and expect that there will be someone to officiate at the courthouse, such as the Justice of the Peace. These people are not bound by religious covenants as Priests, Ministers, Rabbis, etc are. Their position is a LEGAL one.

I do believe that denying same-sex couples the right to marry, now that homosexual sexual activity has been officially decriminalized, is wrong. For those of you who feels that it would diminish the sanctity of traditional marriage, let me add these thoughts, the current divorce rate is near 60%, any two heterosexual idiots can get married upon meeting each other in Las Vegas, a millionaire can have a show on television in order to find a wife, etc. These examples do not back up the sanctity of marriage, but all are considered legal. If these examples don't diminish the sanctity of marriage, in your own mind, I truly cannot understand how allowing two men or two women who love each other, have been sharing a life for years (decades in many cases), to marry would further diminish the meaning of marriage.

For those of you who have a reproduction argument, a heterosexual couple is not required to have children in order to marry and a sterile person is not denied the right to marry based on reproductive ability. Since they cannot reproduce, should they be denied the right to marry?

Just some thought, I will probably have more or better organized thoughts later