Gay Marriage

Re: .


I'd call it incestuists myself... However it can hardly be called a preference since most people are unlikely to have more than 8 siblings thus making it more of a personal attraction between individuals rather than a preference.

Well... at least you winked after calling me foolish, so that made me feel a little better.

If I didn't have the right to be foolish, I think I would have been executed several times over by now... I love America.

Just out of curiosity (I'm not going to try to make some sort of point out of it), have you ever felt that other men would be happier if they were homosexual?

It's virtually impossible to imagine that you would have any homosexual friends, let alone perhaps any friends what so ever. But as you insist on the insults, then so be it. As antibuddha doesn't agree with your opinions either, that would make two of us. Maybe it's because you have no friggin' clue WTF you're talking about, as you'd rather just hurl insults, and then voice a ridiculous opinion based on religious doctrine, which, as a bottom line summation, only proves you to be an ignorant homophobic. This is why many of MY friends (I live in SF, in case you forgot) are really laughing their collective arses off. And you know why? Because they are truly HAPPY. They are also quite secure in who they are. It would seem as though you are not.

Hearing anyone coming from your perspective in condemning homosexuality from a religious perspective is a clear sign of someone who is truly clueless when talking about this subject.

But you keep making up your little scenarios if it somehow makes you feel better. We'll just keep on laughing...

what legal jurisprudence is there that denies adults rights because of an inherent property possessed by another adult, viz., their sex?

i would hope that the man-on-dog rhetoric from the right wing will not be regurgetated here, because, beastiality like incest is not germane to the discussion of why a man can marry a woman but can not marry a man.

if the premise is that our rights flow from our common humanness, and civil and societal rights stem from recognizing it, then how can a person's rights be abrogated because of the state of being of another person?

this is the issue when one claims that Bob can marry Eve, but not Steve. Bob is restricted from a right to marry only because of the state of being of another adult.

where else in our legal history is this present, i.e., that the rights of a person are independent of that person's state of being? even with children, and the comcomitent restrictions society places upon children in the areas of smoking, drinking, driving, and legal contracts, there is the requirement that it is the state of being of the child, his/her age that is the mitigating circumstance leading to a restriction of rights. they are not denied their rights because of anyone else, but because their innate property of age.

I called your opinions (on this topic) foolish... of course (as I emphasised) that's only in my opinion. Smart people (as I believe you are) often hold foolish opinions. I've identified several of my own, though if I know that it exists and is foolish then I've already removed it. I'm sure I have plenty more that are foolish though that I haven't spotted.

And I respect not only your right to have opinions but I also respect you yourself (because you're witty). Which I don't do for everyone, so don't get too depressed over it. Okay?



Join the club brother. I don't live in America but I certainly appreciate the freedoms of the first world nations.



... I misread your question. I was about to answer "weren't homosexual" before I glanced up at it again. Certainly an intriguing question, thankyou for giving me something to think about... hmmm *ponders*

Not everyone, but a few people I think would be. I don't think that it's a case of "everyone would be happier straight" or vice versa. Rather I think that each... (man I'm going to get killed for using this word) ... lifestyle, has its ups and downs, which mesh to differing degrees with individual personalities.

However if there were less prejudice and legal repression within the world against homosexuality the proportion of people whose happiness could be increased by becoming homosexual (assuming that such is possible...) would increase.

On the other hand if sexism (from both camps... women I'm not holding you blameless at all), were less then I believe some of the positive benefits of homosexuality for straight men would decrease. Not to the point where homosexuality would become overwhelmingly more negative than heterosexuality, but merely the two would become more equalised (as I believe they should be).

In short it is a complex issue in which one way can not be said to be "better" than another, only more suited to an individual personality.

As a final note, I believe everyone would be better off if we were all truely bisexual. I wouldn't give up being gay for just about anything, but if I were bisexual the chance of finding someone perfect for me would roughly double. It would also stop much of the ugly division.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Here we go again.

I find your avatar amusing in that situation... I can just picture the little cat looking up at a boulder about to fall and holding up a sign saying "uh oh!".

How right you are Einherjar - I was just thinking the same thing after having reviewed SCoates and Dookiestix's posts last week.

That is so true...have you ever thought about going into the cartoon industry? (Or are you in it already?) I can picture your comment turned into a cartoon on Warner Bros or Walt Disney...it's clever.

Thanks. I do comics and tend to think in visual flashes, that one though was totally Wile E. Coyote.