Don't look bad at all.



... Uh, isn't this the ONE kind of place on the entire net where you might be justified asking what strangers think of your looks?

And please don't be That Guy who greets a newcomer with mocking.

Sure they have potential to produce future citizens - through adoption or any of the other methods available when you can't concieve children, and raising a child undeniably affects it far more than any genetic material a parent might provide (barring serious diseases or damage).

and the argument about 'half the potential' is not the point because it take smore than 'half' potential for a future citizen to be born,,,,

But not to be brought up, which is arguably the more important part. A lot of kids are born, and there's no real need for every family to reproduce. How many are born into a loving family, though?

I'd say they have plenty of potential to produce future citizens, with just as much social impact.


I'll have to disagree with you there, for the same reasons any couple that would produce a suffering child shouldn't be creating one of their own seed.


Actually, the right to "marriage" between just about any two consenting adults sounds pretty okay to me. I mean, isn't it first when what they do could harm someone else that we should take notice?

Really, I'm asking. Please give examples for when it wouldn't be okay and I'll reconsider.


Here I'm starting to lose you - I don't at all see "accepting homosexuals" like some kind of step towards general moral decline, any more than "accepting blacks" would be.

I mean, homosexuals aren't doing anything immoral and they're not hurting anyone just by being accepted.
They're just like anyone else with a strange fetish. There are people that like BDSM, women with *****, feet, you name it, and they generally have precisely the same social values as anyone else, just as capable of being saints or *****.

Why hate on people with this particular fetish that are otherwise identical to anyone else? They don't really have any particular social customs to "infect" us with, any more than people who happen to like larger women do. So what social long term effect could they have?



Agree with you all the way here - it used to be about people having equal value, but somewhere along the line people started talking about being equal overall and it seems really strange. o.O


Heh.. heh...
I'm pretty sure it is very, very rare for us to lie down with eachother for the experss purpose of creating a life. We usually do it for fun.


Which makes me prettyy sure that's not why they do it either.

I do agree with "who cares?" though. I don't really care who they sleep with, which is why the whole issue seems very strange to me.
Surely it can't be that important that someone with a different fetish from mine doesn't call the relationship they have with someone else "marriage"?


To help growing families along because raising children takes a lot of work and because they put a lot of spiritual significance on it?

(I wonder why STDs would be mentioned though, heterosexuals have those two when multiple partners become involved)



As I mentioned earlier, why do you Americans identify as "conservatives" or "liberals"?
It's an honest question, by the way, I really want to know.

I mean, they're -political- parties, surely you don't want to be associated with -those-?
And why identifying others as "stereotypically liberal/conservative", when you're nearly identical save for a few hot-button issues?

I apologize for the off-topic question in advance, maybe you could respond in a message?


Couldn't you easily argue that the law goes against the constitution, though, depriving someone of rights? And should the goverment answer to the majority, even when the majority wants to deprive someone of their rights?
I mean, witch-trials were supported by the majority, but does that make them right?

I don't really see them as different from anyone else in anything but fetish, and I've rarely seen anyone argue that couples that are into big butts or animated stuff shouldn't be allowed to marry eachother.

But if both partners are adult it wouldn't be incest anymore, would it?
I mean, the whole issue with them is that children do NOT have the minds of adults, and in most cases (I think) are being tricked or forced to go along, rather than a genuine love-partnership where both parts have made an informed and mature decision.



Tasty tasty batteries.
And female connectors. :P

But it kind of is about banning, isn't it?
I mean, I'm not saying we should promote marriage, gay OR straight - my own parents are unmarried still, yet live happily together without trouble.

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't stop those who want to do it from doing it.
Saying "No, you can't do this thing that everyone else can do", seems very much like banning it to me, but I could be missinterpreting the word.

Whether we should promote something after it is made legal/not illegal seems like a separate issue to me.

Now, changing your physical gender is absolutely a choice (though the desire to do so is biological and isn't any more a choice than any other psychological deviations, I think).
I do find it creepy as all hell though.

Which is not to say I'd consider them worth less as people or deny them rights that I have - or even disinclined to interact with them.
It kind of makes me curious about how they think and feel, actually.

<== Naive kid searching for information Man Was Not Meant To Know. :P

Let me get this straight.
You genuinely, honestly, believe that people choose to be sexually attracted to things?
I mean.. are you attracted to everything, (men, women, children, darkness, women with male genitalia, fat people, feet, etc), and have consciously decided to declare to the world that you only like one of these things (men)?

Because I should tell you now, I don't feel that way, and I'm very, very sure that most people don't (although there probably is some kind of "Omniphilia"), we just grow up and starting noticing girls/boys/whatever when we get into puberty - completely out of our control.

There's also this quote "Can A Person’s Orientation Be Changed?
—Science is firmly on the path of estab-
lishing the innate nature of the trait of homosexuality. The preponderance of the evi-
dence would lead any rational person to conclude that biology, not choice, drives
sexual orientation—both gay and straight. Despite the attempts of a tiny minority of
therapists and pseudo-therapists to “change” a person’s sexual orientation, they
have not been successful. This minority attempts to repress outward behavior and
claim this repression is evidence of a change in actual orientation. Countless nation-
al and international medical and scientific organizations are on record opposing this
false and harmful “therapy.”"

from this book on the subject:
http://libertyeducationforum.org/docs/whitepapers/is_it_a_choice_white_paper.pdf

None of this is meant as offense, I just want to know that we're on the same ground, 'cause I've never in my life consciously made a choice to like girls (particularly ones that want to dress up like Armored Super-Nuns and beat the crap out of monsters, demons and aliens in roleplaying or videogames).

This seems a curious statement to me.
There are people that identify as [insert political group]?
Over here we just vote for the guy/party that is least full of **** and promises to do stuff we want.
I mean.. they're -political- parties. Why would you ever want to be more associated with them than you absolutely have to?



Oh, I do!
Because the child is still not mentally mature and does not have the experience or wisdom to realize the implications of any choice it makes beyond the short-term?

For siblings, I'd say they could totally be married - but not have children, at least not until we find a way to safely undo the damage it does to the child's DNA.
I also think people with severely debilitating and hereditary diseases should not be allowed to have childrn until the disease can, at the very least, be fixed in children.
Both these are to avoid bringing children into the world whose entire lives will be miserable.

I also feel that I should post this here, because it's probably making a really accurate foretelling - I apologize in advance for the harsh language:




That comparison doesn't seem quite accurate.
Isn't it more like everyone isn't ok with having their home searched or their persons searched at the airport, but you being okay with having other people's homes and persons searched at the airport?
With other words - they want to enjoy a right (marrying the one you love) that you already have?

What? I'm a huge, beardy giant, dangit!
And you can't prove otherwise.
Photographic evidence does not count.
*Continues with a grand speech about how I will conquer the world and show you all for thinking I'm mad. Well, who's mad now?!*


But really - nearly everyone loves boobs. I'm pretty sure even most girls love boobs.

I'd like a girl with a similarly crappy sense of humor, an interest in roleplaying, movies, fantasy, science fiction, games, or at least a willingness to learn.

Appearance is obviously a plus, but it's really far secondary to those two first points and I'm a strong believer in falling in love with someone's personality (have the internetz to thank for that one - the only thing you can flaunt here is your words).

Hello.
Who are you, what are your interests, how prepared are you for a zombie, alien or demon invasion, and what would you do if somone offered to make you an evul witch?

I believe that I am inherently good, and that everyone who disagrees with me must be purged with flame and chainsword.

But seriously, I do believe that because we are social animals by nature, we would probably fit into what most would call a "good" baseline naturally. At the very least intending good.

Now, "What is good" and "What is evil", are far trickier questions than "Are humans social animals", with the worst part being that there are probably people that will disagree with any objective definition we could come up with - and that's exluding people that the majority of us would call "evil". It's very subjective, really.

Hello there, ladies.


Like iwturkjr asks, what kind of nerd would you be looking for?

You know what?
Sure. That guy was an awesome viking.
And probably closer to me in mind and appearance anyway.

I agree the fundementals are very different (pedophiles hurt children, gays hurt noone) which is why we should dismiss it on that ground, rather than because they are "off topic".


Texas has that too? Excellent!

But how do we know what he wants?
I mean, it is pretty arrogant to assume you know the will of someone who supposedly created everything, of whom we only know of from word of mouth and a book that has been edited by many unethical people throughout the years (the whole thing with Luther and selling forgiveness, for example).

Then again, this is pretty off-topic.

Now that I know how to post images...
I got this one from somewhere - doesn't seem that unreasonable:

And some seem to require some of this, which really is a pleasure to provide, if somewhat risky as you have to put your own heart on the line:

I'll have you know that I do have a big, viking-y beard!
It's just.. uuuh... invisible!
That's right, I'm so badass that I grow invisible beards!


Thanks!
How about this one? (From the Scandinavia and the World webcomic)





But... I like cooking. :<

Just that it was a comparison, rather than that he claimed that they were related.

I believe that this, too, was a comparison. Interracial marriages being illegal seems very similar to homosexual marriages being illegal to me.

Aren't they mostly bound by the goverment these days?
I mean, many marriages don't mention god at all.
I do agree that you shouldn't force religious priests to perform ceremonies "under god" though, much like you don't ask a particular club to allow people they dislike in (or do you?), but state-marriages, or starting their own church that does?
Why not?
No really, I'm asking.

Not that sure - a lot of people put a lot of spiritual significance in the concept of being "married".

I, at least, have never heard of someone wanting to marry someone they love to get better benefits. Then again, they can get pretty much the same benefits here, even if they're not married, so my sample group is probably biased.

If that picture is of you - I can't imagine why.

Hey, no fair!
You can't compare to Helga, dangit!
What chance do I have against her?

(Also, how do you put images in your posts? I don't seem to find any way of doing so)

Wah..?
I thought it was a comparison, a similar case taken up that would allow you to relate and share how he felt about the whole thing, rather than the two being directly related?