if I choose to sleep with a man or woman or noone at all,,, it is indeed a CHOICE

if I wISH to sleep with a man or woman or noone at all, that is possibly not a choice

when I add the word LIFESTYLE , I would think it obvious that I am referring to the CHOICE aspect

I am a bisexual by nature who lives a HETEROSEXUAL lifestyle

I am sure there are heterosexuals and homosexuals who live abstinent lifestyle

lifestyle choice and personal tastes are too different things

living a homosexual lifestyle is a choice, there is no BLACK lifestyle, or IRANIAN lifestyle, as those are tied to BIRTH ancestry

well choose me if you want cause i aint no ordinary cracker

ur picture is kind of scurry though,,,lol

ur picture is kind of scurry though,,,lol


i thought you been on and perved me before i took my photos down...hmmm sorry,RKISIT photos coming soon

I think what you are saying is that choosing the person with whom you have sex is a choice, and with that I can agree.

It is also choice that leads us to commit to a monogamous relationship. And it is a choice of heterosexuals to marry when they make such a commitment, but it is not a choice for homosexuals.

There are, likewise, other examples in which 'lifestyle choice' is not equally offered to those of the gay community. So, suggesting that homosexuality or gender identity is a lifestyle choice is inaccurate.

It is offensive to suggest homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice' for two reasons. Homosexuality or gender identity is not considered to be a choice, and the second reason is that 'lifestyle choices' of homosexuals are limited and not equal between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

I havent disagreed or agreed whether being a homosexual is a choice, I have only agreed with the sentiment that having a homosexual LIFESTYLE is a choice

just as being homosexual or heterosexual but living an ABSTIENT LIFESTYLE is a choice

noones choices are completely equal, I do not have the choice to practice law because I didnt fit the STATE Requirements to be a lawyer

marriage, is also a contract legally speaking, which has requirements not everyone will meet

Not me.

Well, if you do decide to sleep with a woman, please let me know!

Perhaps a definition of LIFESTYLE would help us focus on the actual issue. What definition would you suggest for 'lifestyle' as it relates to US citizens?



Yes, living in sexual abstinence is just as much a choice as choosing with whom we have sex, (as limited by law).

What does that have to do with an equal choice of two people (not restricted by any OTHER law)to form a monogamous relationsip and marry?



I disagree, you certainly have the choice to pursue the education and pass the examinations that would qualify you to become a practicing lawyer.

The restrictions in such cases are not based on an unfounded premise. These restrictions were enforced becasue it the overwhelming evidence suggested that they were necessary to protect the rights of individuals.



I agree that the legal aspects of a marriage contract should include certain restrictions. My conclusions about such restrictions are based on great amounts of empirical evidence that suggest these restrictions are necessary to protect individual rights.

However, there is no relavent empirical evidence to suggest that allowing homosexuals to marry would impose on the individual rights of anyone, while not allowing same-sex marriage greatly imposes on the rights of many more people than just heterosexuals.

lol, Ive had tempting offers, still choosing to decline them though

I guess its all in perspective of whether one views marriage as a RIGHT or a government recognized contract

I can indeed choose to commit to life with a woman, the government just chooses not to promote and encourage that type of bond the same way they choose to promote and encourage the original union, the union we ALL come from which in itself makes it a unique type of bond singularly significant to the community

as a bisexual, I dont see marriage as my RIGHT, I see it as the governments way of promoting and encouraging the foundation of the community which is the family and has to START(whether it is maintained or ends up there or not) with the initial ROOT of life,, the male female bond,,,

just as I , a female, embrace the fact that I am NOT the same as a man, I recognize similarly that if I have a relationship with a woman,, it wont be the same as that with a man,



as a single mother, I recognize the significant difference it will make in my daughters life to not have a father figure and statistics pretty much back that up along with my own personal observations

I would never get upset that the government is not encouraging or promoting single motherhood in the same way that they promote marriage

I have the choice to marry, but so does EVERYONE else, it becomes a matter of whether I get to marry WHOMEVER I love,,, which for same sex, closely related, or those considered Minors is not the case and I happen to understand the logic behind those reasons,,,,

Conclusions that might be reached from the statements above include the inference that happiness, contentment, continued personal development and even identity, are an equal exchange for the right to marry.

As a whole, bi-sexuals display attraction to one sex or another to a matter of degree.

Those who are drawn primarily to the opposite sex are fortunate because they can marry without compromising thier identity, happiness, contentement and continued personal development.

Likewise, most bi-sexuals can marry with varying degrees of compromise without it hindering happiness and personal development.

Ultimately, the only way a homosexual can marry is to compromise their happiness, contentment, continued personal development and even identity.

I do not consider that a CHOICE in a country in which freedom, liberty, and justice are the motto.

and there is the rub, I dont consider my sexual preferences my IDENTITY, its a small part of the equation or a relationship

I have the things I feel, and the things I do, and there is in life often compromise between the two

now, I choose not to sleep with married men or single/married women, because of certain values I hold,,,,and I understand your point about my 'happiness' considering I can find it with a man

but what I dont get is what a marriage license has to do with someones happiness,,,,where is that correlation?

why is it so important to have that license? why is it so important to try to assert that a same sex union should be considered the EQUIVALANT of a traditional union or that a woman is the EQUIVALENT of a man

we are different and the relationships are as well,,,I think marriage should be left alone to continue to promote the bond that brings life,,,,,but I do think other types of unions should be recognized for their commitment and given similar privileges and rights as the marital commitment,,,

For an individual perspective there is sure a lot of speculation about what the government thinks.

Should the government expand the law, would you then be flexible enough to immediately change your 'perspective' to something more fitting like

"the government chooses to promote and ecourage the bond of marraige between both homosexuals and heterosexuals as a union which benefits society and communities through the responsible actions of adults to participate in creating loving and accepting environments in which children can grow, develope and prosper."

Or will YOUR perspective be unchanged?



The root of all live is not marriage - it is sex. Communities do not thrive and prosper because of marriage, they thrive and prosper becasue of responsible adults who have a vested intrest in creating an environment in which all people can develop and prosper.
just as I , a female, embrace the fact that I am NOT the same as a man, I recognize similarly that if I have a relationship with a woman,, it wont be the same as that with a man,



There are some choices in life that require legitimate personal sacrifice. However, when it comes to law our choices are limited, we follow the law or break it or seek to change it.

Changes in the law often reflect changing attitudes within society. Saying that the law means this, has always meant this, and should never change, does not take into account shifts of attitudes that emerge as societies respond to environmental and cultural changes.

That kind of inflexibility in the law is what brought about the development of the USA. We have continued to prosper through the utility of a flexible legal system.

The most difficult feature of such a system has been, and always will be, convincing others that dogmatic belief systems are counterproductive to creating effective legal codes of ethics.

Lifestyles do change, and so do attitudes of what is acceptible and not. We are often asked to consider the effect of our laws in light of those changes. This is far more difficult task for those who view the las as a dogmatic moral code. Our laws are reflexive, not dogmatic and so they represent current ethical standards rather than dogmatically fixed morals.

Well, as a concerned friend I would be more then happy to walk you through it and help with the process if need be.

It has to do with the well over 1,000 other laws that are inextricable linked to marriage - which you have been informed of many times over. I have been the informant myself, on many occasions in these threads.

It also has to do with acceptance of our families and our children as valued memebers of our communities.

It has to do with the discriminatory treatment that is allowed to continue because we have become a segregated population that is demeaned and harrassed publically without intervention.

That's why being able to marry is so important. And it is why so many people continue to state such offensive things of homosexuals as
Their choice of lifestyles

It is not our choice to be so treated, but what the law reflects to the people is that its what we deserve.

also an offer I have heard before, from other 'friendly' males,,,lol

I dont know of anywhere near a thousand laws founded in whether someone holds a marriage license

by virtue of HAVING children homosexuals prove they do indeed make choices,,,,

and all children are valued members of society, or should be, but that doesnt mean that society promotes or encourages all the things their Parents or guardians choose to take part in or have in their life

and, harassment based upon BEHAVIOR is not something that is exclusive to homosexuals or heterosexuals

people should be civil to each other, but unless someone in a position of authority outwardly discriminates against race or gender, some of that mistreatment is on personal levels within communities and is addressed within those communities by those who are fair and just and ignored by others(as with any other type of personal bullying that occurs)

I dont feel particularly fond of grown men walking around with their pants beneath their butts, and likewise dont feel fond of men walking around switching their behind or wearing makeup,,,but thats my PERSONAL distastes and they dont cause me to overtly MISTREAT anyone although they cant be HELPED but to influence my comfort around them or my choice to associate

there is not one collective way that all homosexuals carry themself anymore than there is one way heterosexuals carry themself

and since noone knows who you partner with sexually until you tell them(not you specifically, but generally speaking) the initiating factor to alot of discrimination lies in how people are choosing to CARRY themself and how much they are choosing to share about their sexual lives and preferences with others


and still none of this answers for me why the marriage license is important instead of a campaign to make commitments in all their forms accessible to the same 'rewards' or 'privileges' or 'rights' or whatever else they are called,,,

a litmus test proving a commitment, should be as viable a resource to have access to certain things as a marriage 'license' is

and as it relates to the argument that all loving homes are equal, I personally, dont see why society should care whether brother and sister want to share their life and belongings and adopt children

I dont personally see why society should care if a sixteen and thirty two year old want to share their life and belongings

there are all TYPES of adults and consentual relationships where the individuals are capable of providing a loving environment for a child

and I feel if there can be legal proof(not necessary for it to be a marriage license) that there is such a commitment existing, those types of unions should be aknowledged for their 'contribution' by having similar resources that married couples do

so when incest becomes no longer a disbarment from the marriage requirements, nor age, than I can say the theory that any relationship that can provide a loving environment for a child or that any relationship in which the individuals can be contributing members of society should be the equalizing requirements for a marital license is a logical argument for having same sex marriages

I will probably leave the country, but yes, I will then concede that

'"the government chooses to promote and ecourage the bond of marraige between both homosexuals and heterosexuals(and siblings and citizens of all ages) as a union which benefits society and communities through the responsible actions of adults to participate in creating loving and accepting environments in which children can grow, develope and prosper."

redy,

very sorry if that last post ran on,, ( grammar and spelling were PRIORITY in our home growing up so I personally get a headache when people run together disconnected ideas or incomplete thoughts,,,lol)

my fingers got going and wouldn't stop,, its a complex topic and I enjoy the debate with such an intelligent and respectful person as yourself


Im tired or this particular topic for now though, but I will be checking on it again later


much respect,,,until then...