missing the point, those who give me a law license arent deciding that I want to enter law

those who issue a drivers license arent deciding that I want to drive

that is where the PERSONAL CHOICE ENDS

those issuing licenses set the guidelines and rules related to WHOM They will issue licenses to,,,,



think of it this way....

i may CHOOSE to eat hamburgers
my roommate my choose to eat hamburger

that is our personal choice

but if me and my roommate GO TO A THIRD PARTY with hamburgers, it is not our PERSONAL CHOICE to dictate whether they have to choose to give one to us

if there is a THIRD PARTY, it is no longer a personal choice, it is a choice that THREE PARTIES have the right to make,,,,,

they do lack equality,, when they 'get together' they have NO POTENTIAL to produce future citizens, their relationships have significantly less SOCIAL impact, long term FUTURE impact than what heterosexuals have when they 'get together',,,,


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,,,,


and if we are going to start arguing that we should not consider the long term affects regarding reproduction, than that is the VERY ARGUMENT that makes the comparison to adult consentual incest with homosexual marriage VALID,,,,,two homosexuals cannot and wont make a life together, and IF they make a life with someone else, that is their RIGHT to do so

and if a mother/son, brother/sister do make a life together, that is also their 'right'

so we can expand the idea of 'rights' all day long to pretty much just allow anyone to get married who is over the age of 18, damned the long term consequences to future generations in terms of family stability,,,and community foundation


not sure why this is hard to accept,,,its not a statement about personal worth, its a statement about SOCIAL LONG TERM affect,,,,,


men are not EQUAL to women, dont believe me, check how often men are excused from hitting a woman compared to how often women are excused from hitting men

check how women are viewed socially if they leave their children with the father,, as opposed to fathers with many baby mamas

,, we are DIFFERENT, that doesnt mean we are better or worse,, but sometimes we get so carried away with the idea of 'equal' , in my opinion, that we border on ridiculousness in trying to prove that we are and should be treated exactly the 'same'

,, its not and should not happen, there is good reason for us to have been born with different anatomies,, because we are MEANT to have differences ,, not to keep fighting to have every detail be THE SAME,,,

if you are a male who is going to lie down with a woman, because of your potential to create a life (in any healthy situation), you should be encouraged to make a commitment to that woman and the future family you might create

if you are a female who is going to lie down with a man, because of your potential to create a life (in any healthy situation) you should be encouraged to make a commitment to that man and the future family you might create

if you are a female lying down with a female, because of your lack of potential to create a life, who cares?

if you are a male lying down with a male, because of your lack of potential to create a life, who cares?

it starts and ends with you if its not heterosexual in nature,, if its not heterosexual in nature it will ALWAYS start and end with you (not considering the STDS if multiple partners become involved, which is another debate which we are already too far gone to do much about, thanx to sexual 'freedom')

, so why should there be perks or encouragements form society for you to commit to each other or not?

No, you've missed my point. People are not being forced to get married. They are choosing to get married. And choosing who they marry. So yes, it's definitely a personal choice.

thats why society is supposed to dictate the rules/regulations... but when the people vote, and they(gay libs) still try to overturn what the majority says, then it's a problem...

Whether or not gay people can marry has no effect on whether you can marry. They're not taking away your ability to choose to get married or your ability to choose who to marry.

you keep saying that, but the fact is it's still the law...and when cali had a vote on it, the majority said no... they(gay libs) decided the peoples voice wasn't good enough, and sent it to the supreme court... one of the reasons i will always vote no...

The SCOTUS could surprise us and uphold the traditional definition of marriage. Then a civil union is all the liberals have.

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.

because there is a difference between cons and libs...

no, i couldn't argue something that's against nature... there is a stopping point about peoples "rights", i don't see anywhere someone has a "right" to go against nature, and being as pointless and unproductive as being gay...

I need clarification here. Pointless and unproductive? What do you mean exactly? You mean that all they can't have children? Isaac Newton died a virgin, was he pointless? Expressing love physically to the one you love is pointless? Please clarify

clarification: it's pointless and unproductive... thats why we are taught self control as a child... and yes, since he didn't have any children, as far as nature is concerned, he was pointless... and he really didn't do anything special, figured out why an apple fell on his head... someone would have done it anyway... but if he would have had 2 children, each with the same inquisitive mindset, then maybe not so pointless...

just because you want to love someone, doesn't mean you have too...

I get that you're ok with voting away the rights of minorities. I'm sure you wouldn't be fine if it were your rights they were voting away.

Why do you have an issue with the Supreme Court taking on the issue? Are you worried they're going to vote in favor of gay people?

And why are you calling them gay libs? You do realize that not all gay people are liberal, right?

So you find any relationship that doesn't result in having children pointless?

And you think that Newton didn't do anything important? Is that because he didn't procreate?

You've never been in love, have you? I don't know anyone, myself included, who has been able to stop loving someone just like that, because they didn't have to love them.

I hate to break it to you, but kids are ALWAYS going to be exposed to things that may be undesirable or not good for them. That's called LIFE, that's called REALITY. That's where you come in as a parent, you are there to help them from making bad decisions, take some responsibility instead of relying on everyone else to do it for you.

Are you really that unconfident in your parenting skills that someone else's decisions could effect your kids that much? Cause that's what it sounds like to me.

And who exactly defines sin to begin with? "sin" is a bit of a relative term in the first place, without direct harm. What's right for one may not be for another and vice versa we are all different.

So yeah number one, you want to protect your kids from bad things? Do your job as a parent so they make good choices, stop trying make everyone else responsible for it. And two realize that just cause something is new to you, doesn't make it bad. Open your mind to new ideas......some things are just different. Not bad, not wrong, just different.

I truly dont believe that it is about the 'rights' as much as getting society to accept and glamourize homosexuality as they do heterosexual 'marriage'

but, if it did turn out to really be about 'rights',, a life partnership contract could be created for those who are not heterosexual which gives ALL The rights and privileges of marriage without any reference to a sexual relationship,,,,,

dont know anyone who would object to it, and it would allow those who choose to be abstinent or who have close family members they are sharing life with to get the ''rights' they are allegedly due as a 'right',,,,equal to married couples

no, they are not being forced to be married, or forced to get a drivers license, that is their CHOICE if they want to do that

but it is also the third partys CHOICE ( the party issuing the license) as to whether they will ISSUE said license and under what conditions

thats where personal choice ends and authoritative choice begins,,,,

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.




adopting a child is not PRODUCING A child, its taking responsibility for what SOMEONE ELSE PRODUCED

someone ELSE (Two someone elses in fact) that we in society try to encourage to commit to each other and their future family through marriage,, but who didnt choose that OPTION and then left the child to be raised by others instead

sweety, you dont have to break anything to me, I have actually RAISED children,,,

this sounds like the same excuse of parents who will get high with kids and let kids have sex in their home because 'its gonna happen anyway'

well, let me break it down to YOU,, if SOCIETY promotes and accepts something it makes it even MORE LIKELY to happen than if they stay neutral or stigmatize it

I happen to believe we all hold SOME Responsibility for the futures of our children (speaking of communities, not parents specifically)

its not just about the parent and what they teach , its also important what the VILLAGE teaches and how much they SUPPORT what is being taught by parents,,,

I do plan to raise my children, in spite of what I view as declining standards in public education and media,,,,

but I dont live in a tunnel, so I will continue to have an opinion on how much its gonna suck for society AT LARGE in the long run,, becaue my children and their children will be a part of that society,,,,

Then it's clear you really don't have much faith in your own parenting if you need to make others responsible for the raising of your own. If you raised them right, what others do would not be of a concern, much less any threat.

And I disagree too, I think stigmatizing an action as compared to educating about it, both good sides and bad, makes the action much more desirable. You don't want someone to do something? TALK TO THEM, don't just preach. That will go much farther and you are much more likely to gain their respect.

I find it sad I need to be explaining this to you when you're the parent in this situation.......