Dak

Trust me, virginity is not an inportant aspect in a partner. there are other, far greater aspects. anyway, the answre to your question is 'some'. there will be some. it may be hard to find them, but if its that inportant to you id sujjest that you put in the effort to find them, rather than choosing a child to 'reserve' untill shes old enough.

Its good that your intending to wait untill shes old enough to initiate a relationship... but its arguable that you shouldnt have any romantic intentions towards a child, even if you intend for the romance to be in years time. why would you find a child romantically interesting, even if you intend to wait... why not simply go for adults.

but the primary motivation for the curfew is to reduse crime... its still limiting the freedom of the majority to prevent the actions of a minority.

ps2huang, do you consider a 15 year old female to be an adult or a child?

how would you feel if you werent alowed out after 9pm, on account of a local prostitution problem. and, you know, the fact that most prostitutes operate after dark and are female, like you are. keeping females indoors after dark would not only minimize the amount of prostetution, it would also protect you all from being dragged into dark alleys and raped by strangers. Or we could curfew black people. i hear that in some areas, most crime is (proportianately) committed by blacks...

so would i. It would make things a lot simpler. as it is, without a way of distinguishing, we just have to force them all to marry gays, or allow them all to refuse to marry gays.

If they believe that worshiping in the way that seems most correct inovolves homosexual marrrage, then they should not be a member of a sect which consists of people who believe worshiping in the way that seems most correct prohibits homosexual marrage. and it is a buisness of the churches if the person subscribes to that faith. in other areas of religion id probably agree with you, but marrage is, in the vast majority of cases, percieved (from a religiouse pov) to be a union between a man and a woman, hense the reluctance for most churches to wed gays id assume. you cant demand that they alter their perseption of what marrage fundamentally is. for those who believe marrage = man + woman, asking them to wed two people of the same sex is paradoxical. scripture is quite inportant to a religion, so its obviouse theyd cite it as a reason. and, whilst it undoubtably can be founded in predjudice, it isnt nessesaraly. as i said, if it stems from predjudice, its wrong and shouldnt be allowed. if it stems from genuine belief that god doesnt want us to be gay, then it should be allowed.

yes, but if that sect's interpretation of god's words lead them to the opinion that god forbids homosexuality, then they arent practicing that sect's religion, are they? Itd be like me, without changing my diet, trying to join the Most-Holy-Vegan-Order-of-The-Sacred-Sprout (who believe that eating meat is the worst sin). i could not even begin to claim to practice that religion, for the simple reason that i am far too fond of sausage. the analogy should be obviouse. Although i do see your point when you say this: someones sex is more relevant to marrage than wether or not they (for example) steal. I guess im abit split on the issue now; without a means of determining wether or not the sect genuinly believe its gods will or are just homophobes, i dont think they should be forsed into marrying them.

i wasnt arguing that gays shouldnt be allowed to marry... like i said, i dont see the point and id advise them against it for a few reasons, but thats not enough for me to think that they shouldnt be allowed. my argument was that they should be allowed civil marages, and allowed religiouse marrages by those sects that chose to marry them. those sects which chose not to should not be forsed to. im now coming round to some of sayos arguments abit, but i still feel that if their descision is genuinly what they think god wants, they shouldnt be forsed to marry gays. they are not allowed to abuse their position in a way which is unjustifiably detrimental to others. hence, if its just their personal oppinion, they shouldnt be able to use it as basis for denying gays marrage, in the same way that an enployer has the right to hate gays, but not to deny them enployment (unless there was a valid reason that gays couldnt/shouldnt perform the job)

i see the point. if theyre not causing any trouble, then why should they be denied the right to stay out after 9?

thats what i was initially arguing, but what if the church make the desision based on the high-up's own personal oppinion of gays, and not on their interpretation of scripture? thatd leave the gays in a position where they could think that christianity (for example) as interpreted by that church was the correct religion and therefore the one in which they should be married, and also that cristianity as interpreted by that religion allows gay marrage but that the bishops etc of that church were preventing gay marrage for personal (not religiouse) reasons.

it reminds me of an odd thing that used to happen on my old computer. very rarely, whenever i went to google.com, rather than being the big, empty search box (like this), there'd be a '%s' in the search box and a list of results, the first of which was always mcdonalds. like this never worked out why...

most of us dont. democracy in action

al quaidas slightly less elite splinter group, al retuardia. they seem to have forgotten a main ingreadient in the whole 'bomb' concept, ie the main explosive bit. sounds like some gits having a laugh. i dont think al quaida would be that mercyful, although i suppose it could enfors the immediate threat of terrorism without pushing the govournment into any hasty invasions?

personaly, yes. i think it kinda defeats the point personally, no. personally, no. its better late than never. personally, i think thats fine and dandy. allthough, its up to variouse religions to interpret the bible as they see fit. there are valid religiouse arguments both for and against the above. however, now that iv had some sleep and can think strait, i can see the argument against. Ok, so as i see it, if a church refuses to wed gays, then its for one of two reasons: 1/ they genuinely believe that god doesnt wish gays to marry 2/ they hate poofs. if one, then i think they should be allowed to refuse to wed gays. if two, then i can see now how thats wrong. a gay person shouldnt be deprived the right to be married by his/her faith simply because their priest is a homophobe (if god is a homophobe theres little can be done). ok, so heres a question: if a church claims to think that god is against homosexual marriage, how do you determine wether they are genuinely of that oppinion, or just abusing their eccumenical position to enforce their own bias? yep, i was tired; and that was indeed poorly worded (and irrelivant) cak

it shouldnt. unless you go to the church and ask for a religiouse seromony which is based heavaly on their interpretation of what somebody once thought god wanted. in which case it will. obviously.

the former, sort of. if a persons sexual practices and their religiouse beliefs clash, then they have to abandon one or the other, or be a hypocrite. if they feel their sexuality is the more inportant, then they can chose another church (and get married their). if they feel their church is the more inportant, then they can supress their homosexual desires and remain in the church, possibly even getting married there to a member of the opposite sex. the root of hypocracy leeds to a position where they are essentially saying "I feel a strong need to get married in this particular church; what i dont feel a strong need to do is heed this churches teachings on homosexual marrage being bad". either that particular churches take on marrage is inportant, in which case they should actually accept that its wrong for gays to marry, or its not inportant in which case they can get married elsewhere. a sects interpretations of the rules of god. thats whats inportant to them. i just feel its asking a bit much to expect them to go against what they perciev as gods wishes. O righty ho. im well aware of why people have a problem with it. but tollerance is a two way thing. religiouse people who feel that gays are debased and immoral are expected and forsed to tolerate homosexuals. I feel that homosexuals should be expected to tolerate the fact that some people have homo-unfriendly views. <!--fatuigue sets in here--> whilst the religiouse people who disaprove of gay marrage are forsed to tolerate the existance of gays and churches who will marry them, i think that gays should be forsed to tolerate the existance of churches who disaprove of gay marrage. as long as gays have other churches to get married in, i dont think they should be forsed onto the churches who dont want to marry them. in a similar vein: nazis can hate blacks for all i care, as long as they dont go around shouting abuse at them, beating them up or depriving them of jobs or in any other way being nasty to them. they dont have to like or accept them, only tolerate them. If they tolerate black people thus, i think black people should tolerate the fact that the tits exist, and that they will hang aroung in their little neo-nazi clubs slagging off black people. I also think black people should tolerate the fact that they will not be allowed in these clubs (as long as there are other clubs to go to). religiouse people can bar homosexuals from their weddings, as long as other churches exist where they can get married, and aslong as the churches dont go around actively making the gays lifes hell. if think that they should be allowed to quietly disaprove of gays; forsing them to marry gays would be like a black man specifically going to a nazi club and ordering a pint. if they dont like them but arent actively trying to harm them, then let them be... and let the gays tolerate certain churches quiet condemnation. im very tired*, so the above might have sounded wrong,,, my central piont is that you cant force acceptance. you cant force religiouse people to accept gays. some will chose to of their own accord, others can be forced to tolerate them and not be actively nasty. i think its best for gays to just leave them be, and not force themselves on them. of cource, all of that assumes that its actually based in homophobia, and not the genuine belief that god doesnt want gays to marry, which would make the argument against forsing them to marry gays stronger. im still increadably curiouse as to why someone would want to get married in a church which condems them anyway. [edit]---------------------------------- *dont spend too long arguing against anything from 'fatuigue sets in here', as ill probably agree that its cak and reword it tomorrow when im less tired. stoopid insomnia [/edit]

why would you want a romance with a 15 year old? why not just wait untill you happen to meet someone you like, and then get to know her better, and fall in love etc and who preferably is older than 18? when you find the right person, youll know you can trust her if she sais shes a virgin you may even descide that her virginity or otherwize isnt that inportant.

as in "the most you can do is wait"? in that case, 'the most' is related to 'do', not to 'you' ie, it means "the most that can be done by you is wait", or "waiting is the most that you can do". that would make it an adverb, as it modifies the verb 'do' (i think)

katy holmes is 261, not 15.

how does that work? sex is surely an arbitrary charechtoristic, and they are surely being denied the right to attend a specific school based upon it.

larcenouce = theif. a- = not (prefix) alarcenouce = not theif. (possibly not correct, but thats what i meant) religions interpret these things in different ways. if a religion felt that marrying a thief would be going against gods wishes, then i dont feel that that church should be forsed to do what they feel is wrong by god; espescially as there exist numerouse other churches which will marry thiefs. same with gays: some churches feel its ok to marry gays, others think it goes against gods will. i dont see why the latter should be forced to commit what they would consider a sin when the former exist, and would willingly do it. you know the score. 'god says x therefore x'. aimed externally, i think it should be stopped, so: "god says 'thout shal not lay with another man', so homosexuality should be illegalised" i think is patently wrong and should not be allowed. aimed internally, i think it should be allowed, so: "god says 'thout shal not lay with another man', so this church isnt going to marry gays" is, imo, acceptable, (albeit not very nice).

if the discrimination is kept within the church' date=' then why is that bad? the homosexuals are free to shun the church -- theres no [i']need[/i] for homosexuals to be members of a church, and other viable ways for them to get married exist. one could look at it as 'religiouse people have the same rights anyone would reasonably expect if they felt that they were being preventing from worshiping as they saw fit with the support of a subset of the populance. religiouse marrage is not desighned to be a union between an alarcenouce man and an alarcenouce woman, so theres no real reason why they should be. they desighn of marrage specifically requires one man and one woman. not two men or two women. many religions believ that is simply not marrage, and is an affront to god. why should a religion be forced to go against what it believes in this case?

well, my reasons why i dont think gays should get married is more a wishy-washy personal oppinon type thing, but this is what im firmly against. what right do gay people have to turn round to religiouse people and demand them to a)ignore the fact that their god has condemed homosexuals, and b)perform a religiouse ceromony on aforementioned condemed heathens, that c) is specifically desighned by god to unite two people of the opposite sex. as far as im concerned, they have no more right than religiouse people have to turn around and tell gay people to stop being so-darned-gay because of something written in a book which the gay people a)probably dont give a poo about, b)would more-than-likely interpret differently anyway, and which was c) writtern by someone they may not even believe in. religiouse people shouldnt boss others around about how to live their life if they dont subscribe to their religion, but also gays shouldnt attempt to boss religiouse people around about how to conduct their religiouse ceromonies if they dont subscribe to the oppinion that gays should be married. as long as religions arent forsed into marrying gays, then i'd not rais an objection to it (although id still have one).

i really dont like the social aspect of marriage. if two people love each other to the extent that they want to spend the rest of their lifes together, then i think that should be enough. they shouldnt feel obliged to get up and 'ok' it in the eys of society by getting married; society can go and violate itself with a cucumber, its the two peoples lifes and its of no concern of societys. i also think that the love between two people should be enough to keep them together, and if that love disolves then so should the relationship, in a natural manner. marriage prevents that from happening, which i think is bad for both involved. with a man and a woman, i think the forsed perpetuation of a loveless partnership is nessesary in the event that they fall out of love with oneanother, as they will likely bring childeren into the world, and marriage is a good way of increasing the chances that both parents will rais them, or if not atleast they will both financially support them. with gays not yet having figured out how to procreate, ^that^ is not neccesary, and i feel it would be better to leave the way clear for a natural disolvsion of the marriage, should theire feelings for oneanother change. hense im against gay marrage, but not, as i said, to the point where id try and stopem doing it. Its their life to do with as they wish (as long as they dont hurt anyone else). im also aware that most dont view marriage as dispassionately as i do. what i am strongly against, is when people sujjest trying to forse religions to wed gays. it should be upto the religions wether they want to or not.