100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Same sex marriage vs interracial marriage | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Love is blind... Justice is suppose to be as well. I should have a right to marry whomever I choose regardless of anyone else's preferences or insecurities. My preferences, like my religion should be a personal choice protected by the government that my taxes support. Well said! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love is blind... Justice is suppose to be as well. I should have a right to marry whomever I choose regardless of anyone else's preferences or insecurities. My preferences, like my religion should be a personal choice protected by the government that my taxes support. how is a CONTRACT with the government a 'personal' choice? who we screw,, yea, personal who we commit to, yes personal who we 'marry', public and contractual Of course who we marry is a personal choice. How is it not? Do others decide who you should marry? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Wed 05/22/13 07:11 PM
|
|
good grief come into the 21st century.normal cannot be defined.if 2 people of same sex fall in love,how is that wrong?love doesn't know colour or sexes.it just is.you sound like the old Victorian tempest mob from uk.no offence but at the end of the day live and let live,. we all have views,we all are entitled to live.look around how many hetro relationships are full of vitriol, beatings, murder, divorce, abuse.loads.dont sweep it under the carpet.we are all human and the basic human need is to be loved and wanted.i hate those who bring religion into arguments.religion has nothing to do with who you love.at the end of the day lets be real-jesus wore a long dress and hung around with only guys,.what does that say?  So who defines the definitions of right and wrong? i keep hearing "it's not wrong", but what makes it right? because you say it's right? you don't agree with religion, so anyone that uses religion as a basis is automatically wrong? this love conquers all - even your morality? there's not a point when you ask "is this right?" if people cannot keep self control, then things like this happen... there are no rules of permission only rules of prohibition you don't need permission to do right even the bill of rights is a list of prohibitions :you shall not infringe: you mentioned religion """"""""so anyone that uses religion as a basis is automatically wrong?"""""""""" yes in the U.S. the first amendment prohibits laws based on religion wrong,, my religion says murder is wrong and guess what, so does mans laws so just because I can point to a moral thats in the bible, doesnt mean that Im wrong,, or anyone else murder is an infringement on others thus it is not a solely religious reason for being against the law i still have not seen a legitimate non-religion argument to ban same sex marriage and it is still a law of prohibition I still have not seen proof that objection to homosexual activity is 'religious' only,,,, look up the risks of msm, look up the anatomy of the behind, look up the history of mental illness associated with the homosexual lifestyle before lgbt put the pressure on none of that is 'religious' in nature,,,, 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Wed 05/22/13 07:21 PM
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love is blind... Justice is suppose to be as well. I should have a right to marry whomever I choose regardless of anyone else's preferences or insecurities. My preferences, like my religion should be a personal choice protected by the government that my taxes support. how is a CONTRACT with the government a 'personal' choice? who we screw,, yea, personal who we commit to, yes personal who we 'marry', public and contractual Of course who we marry is a personal choice. How is it not? Do others decide who you should marry? 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,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
good grief come into the 21st century.normal cannot be defined.if 2 people of same sex fall in love,how is that wrong?love doesn't know colour or sexes.it just is.you sound like the old Victorian tempest mob from uk.no offence but at the end of the day live and let live,. we all have views,we all are entitled to live.look around how many hetro relationships are full of vitriol, beatings, murder, divorce, abuse.loads.dont sweep it under the carpet.we are all human and the basic human need is to be loved and wanted.i hate those who bring religion into arguments.religion has nothing to do with who you love.at the end of the day lets be real-jesus wore a long dress and hung around with only guys,.what does that say? So who defines the definitions of right and wrong? i keep hearing "it's not wrong", but what makes it right? because you say it's right? you don't agree with religion, so anyone that uses religion as a basis is automatically wrong? this love conquers all - even your morality? there's not a point when you ask "is this right?" if people cannot keep self control, then things like this happen... there are no rules of permission only rules of prohibition you don't need permission to do right even the bill of rights is a list of prohibitions :you shall not infringe: you mentioned religion """"""""so anyone that uses religion as a basis is automatically wrong?"""""""""" yes in the U.S. the first amendment prohibits laws based on religion wrong,, my religion says murder is wrong and guess what, so does mans laws so just because I can point to a moral thats in the bible, doesnt mean that Im wrong,, or anyone else murder is an infringement on others thus it is not a solely religious reason for being against the law i still have not seen a legitimate non-religion argument to ban same sex marriage and it is still a law of prohibition I still have not seen proof that objection to homosexual activity is 'religious' only,,,, look up the risks of msm, look up the anatomy of the behind, look up the history of mental illness associated with the homosexual lifestyle before lgbt put the pressure on none of that is 'religious' in nature,,,, 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 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,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 still missing the point not about 'banning' anything about choosing what we 'encourage' |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
TeddyRose
on
Thu 05/23/13 01:45 AM
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HUST91
on
Thu 05/23/13 01:28 AM
|
|
still missing the point not about 'banning' anything about choosing what we 'encourage' 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
still missing the point not about 'banning' anything about choosing what we 'encourage' 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,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 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,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Thu 05/23/13 08:01 AM
|
|
1. an egg and a sperm,,, a woman and a male two men cant recreate that,, one will not be the parent two women cant recreate that, one will not be the parent so the argument that same sex couples cant produce a child TOGETHER,, is not false. 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. 2. there are studies of the significant impact of the relationship between both the opposite gender and same gender parent to their child,,, intentional abscence of either of those parents is robbing the child,,, 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? 3. children raised by two adults who loved each other FIRST before creating the child, ,self explanatory benefits... Same sex couple HAVE to love each other before expanding their family because pregnancy accidents are ‘practically’ unheard of. a father can raise a girl, BUT he cannot relate to what she will go through becoming a YOUNGB WOMAN,, only a MOTHER can do th at 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. a mother can raise a girl without a father, but there are any number of studies that show the implications of FATHERLESS homes,,,they dont specify why they are fatherless,,, a mother can raise a boy without a fahter, but she cannot relate to what he will go trhough becoming a YOUNG MAN, only a father can do that 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? a father can raise a boy without a mother, but there are any number of studies showing the impact on children who dont grow up with the love of their mother,,,, 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. both genders are as significant in raising as they are in producing children,,, 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love is blind... Justice is suppose to be as well. I should have a right to marry whomever I choose regardless of anyone else's preferences or insecurities. My preferences, like my religion should be a personal choice protected by the government that my taxes support. how is a CONTRACT with the government a 'personal' choice? who we screw,, yea, personal who we commit to, yes personal who we 'marry', public and contractual Of course who we marry is a personal choice. How is it not? Do others decide who you should marry? 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,,, 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 -
marrying 'who you love' is not a RIGHT That quote is something we’ve heard time and again in these discussions. Let me reference TeddyRose Love is blind... Justice is suppose to be as well. I should have a right to marry whomever I choose regardless of anyone else's preferences or insecurities. My preferences, like my religion should be a personal choice protected by the government that my taxes support. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 still missing the point not about 'banning' anything about choosing what we 'encourage' 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To those who are against same sex marriage, do you feel that interracial marriage should not have been legalized either? If you feel differently about both, why? because others defined race and put people in those categories based upon things they have no control over, not on actions, or preferences, or tastes,,but on BIOLOGICAL HISTORY because the product of too many interracial unions , children, prove that they are no different than intraracial unions,,,,, all that matters is man and woman, they create life, and they are the foundation to be cherished and protected,,, How are they threatened because two men or two women can marry? Tell me how. They'll still have the same right to marry as they do now, they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Letting others do the same doesn't mean they're not protected, they always have been and will be. how are you threatened if others are ok with having their home searched or their persons searched at an airport? immediate threat isnt the point,,,,cultural decline, cultural norms, cultural boundaries are,,,, Really? You're gonna try that argument, really? That's so entirely different it's not even funny! In that case I am threatened because I KNOW that if others keep accepting things like you describe above, they will come for me next, they always do I don't care how you wanna argue it, history proves it time and time again if you actually educated yourself. That's how I'm threatened, because once enough people consent to unlawful things it makes everyone else targets to be forced to give in to the same. Your choices in that case VERY MUCH do impact what happens to me because of the precedence it sets, it does not just effect you, it creates a snowball effect to where everyone else is effected as well. To try and compare that to allowing two people to privately marry one another is just ridiculous. It's not the same thing whatsoever. One has a ripple effect on everyone, the other just plainly does not. Last I checked your own marriages or rights to be together aren't gonna be taken away because we allow someone else the same. As for cultural norms and boundaries, quite frankly I don't care about that, just because we've done things one way for a certain period of time doesn't mean we can't be wrong or in need of change. Used to be that the cultural norm was to view blacks as inferior to whites, and the boundary placing the two races separate from each other. Should that not have changed? Tradition and what is actually good for people, don't always go together. When it comes to individual rights against that, the individual should win every time. EXACTLY THE SAME THOUGHT,, EXACTLY THE SAME LOGIC<, lets review 'That's so entirely different it's not even funny! In that case I am threatened because I KNOW that if others keep accepting things like you describe above, they will come for me next, they always do I don't care how you wanna argue it, history proves it time and time again if you actually educated yourself. That's how I'm threatened, because once enough people consent to unlawful things it makes everyone else targets to be forced to give in to the same. Your choices in that case VERY MUCH do impact what happens to me because of the precedence it sets, it does not just effect you, it creates a snowball effect to where everyone else is effected as well.' I am threatened because I KNOW that if others keep accepting this lifestyle they will come for my kids next and their kids, they always do, I dont care how you wanna argue it , history proves it time and time again if you actually educate YOURSELF. Thats how Im threatened, because once enough people consent to sinful things, it makes everyone else targes to be forced to give in to accepting those sinful things,. The reaction of society and government to our sexual choices VERY MUCH impact what happens to me because of the precedence it sets, it does not just effect you, it creates a SNOWBALL effect to where everyone else is effected as well starting with children, families and communities,,, 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 prohibition does not work just because its no permitted will not keep it from happening it just enhances the allure of doing something risque maybe if it is a choice make it not a big deal and maybe it wont be as alluring 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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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,,,,, 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. 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... Tasty tasty batteries. And female connectors. :P |
|
|
|
|
