Well said!

Of course who we marry is a personal choice. How is it not? Do others decide who you should marry?

and when you were asked should hetro couples be banned from those
acts what was your answer

you were against banning those acts between hetro couples in the
other thread so what is the dif

if things that are a heath risk are illegal then sex in and of its
self is a health risk so lets make all marriages illegal

not to mention everything you do can be a health risk...there
are more health issues from motor vehicles than homosexuality
so lets outlaw motor vehicles

Sat 04/13/13 02:20 AM
Topic: Why the States Should Be Out of Marriage. (Or Legalize All M

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

here are non religious reasons:

Anal sex has a number of health risks. Anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:
The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn't completely prevent tearing.
The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside theanus.Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection.
The anus was designed to hold in feces. The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet. However, Kegel exercises to strengthen the sphincter may help prevent this problem or correct it.
The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex can also lead to vaginal and urinary tract infections.



so, with the risks of anal sex outweighing any significant impact on society like procreation does


why is it governments business to endorse, promote, encourage or license it?

its enough to let it be a personal and private choice, IM against government licensing and putting its stamp of approval and endorsement on it,,,


any sex and any relationship carries unhealthy risks



nowhere near as much risk,, all things being equal,


and one RISK of vaginal sex is creating LIFE<, life that will later be a citizen, a potential decision maker, leader, teacher

its in the interest of society to promote and encourage such 'risks' come with the added security we know is provided when those lives are raised with their mother and father,,,,


there is no such monumental interest society has in homosexual activiites....


there are many that say the earth is becoming overpopulated
so that could be a positive to gay marriage

there are many hetro couples that participate in anal penetration
should they be banned from doing so thus jailed if caught




noone said anything about banning anal sex

the issue is promoting it,,,and no , I dont feel government should

it should promote potential parents committing to each other before risking creating a life


that was one of your reasons to ban gay marriage

so its not a health issue unless you are gay

seems it needs to be a two way issue or a non issue

YES, others decide who can get a license...

just like they decide who can get a drivers license, or a medical license, or any other type of license,,,

its a contract,, if its a contract with GOVERNMENT, then GOVERNMENT decides who to enter into contract with,,,

quite ridiculous, in my opinino

my point is not that anything that has any risk should be BANNED

we cant and shouldnt BAN peoples choices concerning who they want to have sex with or how,,,

that is a different issue (banning action) than who we encourage through licensing to commit to each other

whatever 'risks' are involved in heterosexual sex, the fact is, without it at all we have no species,, without commitments between two people who create a life TOGETHER (heterosexuals), families are affected and chldren (Future citizens) suffer all types of higher risks statistically for any number of things

so , you see, promoting HETEROSEXUAL commitment is a way to encourage strong foundations for children

promoting HOMOSEXUAL commitment has no long term social POSITIVE impact,,,,

there is a VESTED INTEREST, for families (biological) in encouraging heterosexuals to commit to each other,,,whichever risks there may be are outpaced by the BENEFITS

there is no benefit to homosexual commitment that outweighs the risks of homosexual activity,,,and the activity is not important to soceity or the species or families,,,

,,,,see the difference?]


so, to recap

my position is not to BAN sexual behaviors, or make them illegal

my position is to not ENCOURAGE all sexual behaviors people may WANT to partake in,,,,through special consideration and privilage,,,

still missing the point

not about 'banning' anything

about choosing what we 'encourage'

It comes down to personal preference and insecurities... What we encourage... Do you ever question your own words?

What are you scared of?

I work with children that have been abused by others... And none of them come from homosexual couples. It's right wing propaganda supported by one sighted religious bigotry to say a child cannot get the stability of a home from a gay couple or even a single parent.

Our difference make us strong, our love unites us. I am done debating my personal preferences and what should and will be my personal rights to people that let fear and bigotry blind them.

Be well and happy

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.

sigh

no

we can 'ban' actions and words

we canot ban contracts, by definition, contracts have regulations and requirements,,,,,they are not a given or a 'natural' part of our lives like actions and words are,,,

what am I scared of? well

consequences


like those that partially stem from making 'sex' such a casually viewed activity in media and education,, which Im sure plays a part in how much MORE std and sexually active children we now have

or like t hose partially stemming from making mothers just another
adult who should work and 'earn' their way in addition to raising their kids,,, which Im sure plays a part in the competition that leads many families to become broken and the growing number of latchkey kids that started to present in our culture


or those that would come from telling children at a YOUNG age that homosexual sex was as desirable and encouraged as heterosexual sex,, probably leading to a culture of more 'experimental' youngsters who have no idea of who they are anymore and who become even MORE sexually active and experimental,,,,


,,,,time will tell, Im dont explaining the dangers of encouraging a culture that equates the act of homosxual sex with that of the potentially procreative action between heterosexual,,,

adult incest WILL Be next, mark my words

and I will have this same debate with people that have been brainwashed into accepting it as just another 'consetual adult' activity that should be just as supported as any other,,,,,

OH TOGETHER – but here’s the problem with that dear, we are talking about POTENTIAL. You and others have already declared that aging heterosexuals AND those unwilling to have children AND those situations in which one or the other partner is sterile DOES NOT PRECLUDE POTENTIAL and therefore does not render illegal their ability to marry.

So we just have to follow that exact same reasoning – Two same sex couples may not be able to produce a child TOGETHER but that does not preclude the POTENTIAL of either one of the partners to provide ½ of the potential that any other heterosexual person can provide.

So your argument fails.






I can only guess what the is being inferred in the above. Are you talking about studies discussing role models or studies discussing marriage or studies discussing unmarried live-in parents ….. what is your line of reasoning here?



Same sex couple HAVE to love each other before expanding their family because pregnancy accidents are ‘practically’ unheard of.



I happen to know two girls raised by their fathers and a multitude of boys raised by their mothers – they are as well adjusted as anyone else.



And what do these number of studies attribute their findings to? Is it just that a single parent head of house faces a lot more challenges raising children alone? And EXACTLY what are these studies saying about the psychological issues of adults who were raised by a single parent regardless of the gender of parent & child?



Just as everything else stated, that statement is overly generalized and has no meaning. Specifics might include quotes or paraphrased ideas from the various sources that indicated a consensus between the authors or scientists.




That’s what was stated before all the BLA BLA BLA BLA - stating it again at the end does not make it any more valid.

Right, but they're not deciding who you're going to marry. You're deciding that, unless you have an arranged marriage. So yes, marriage is a personal choice.

Msharmony -

That quote is something we’ve heard time and again in these discussions. Let me reference TeddyRose



You see, it’s a matter of justice. We have human rights and we have rights conferred by our citizenship. In the USA there are many laws that render the love of same-sex couples invalid suggesting they lack equality with their heterosexual counterparts.

For justice to prevail, the legal contract of marriage must be offered to same-sex couples. Only then will the laws that are granted to heterosexuals and denied to homosexuals be equal to all parties.

So I contend that marrying who you love IS A RIGHT. And hopefully soon, federal law (DOMA) will be realigned to uphold the idea of marriage as a right.

who is encouraging

just because something is permissible does not mean its encouraged

you are permitted to go travel to Somalia but it is not encouraged
you go there in actuality it is discouraged

yu never did answer this point::

and your kids and their kids can just say no to that lifestyle
IF they want to assuming it is truly a choice and not an inherent
emotion

and if

it is inherent emotion would you not want your kids or their kids
to be able to live the life that makes them happy

I remember first reading this question when it was worded differently.

Then the question was: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

They dream of batteries...

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