Ed, If you really like Heinlein, check out "The Sayings of Lazarus Long'..you'd LOVE it!

OK..I've thought about it, and considered Stringsinger's comments as well.....and somethings in the post from Ed T, ..wait....this one:
"Does choice not also include the acceptance that, while some may choose to move back and forth, many gays are happy loving individuals, that should be free to live their life as they choose - without being judged or discriminated against, just as other people in society. That is not being liberal, nor conservative-it is just being accepting and showing compassion for others."

..and I agreed...but here's something to consider, as well, and incorporating thoughts expressed by Stingsinger.... Especially his premise:
"I have thought about this quite a bit and have come to conclusion that choice is a matter of education, not necessarily academic, but investigative pursuing of a topic. Choice requires that an intelligent decision must be made about something based on factual material."

Moreover, his last sentence.."Choice requires that an intelligent decision must be made about something based on factual material."

YES!..YES!!..YES!!!..that is, IF you, are making an INTELLIGENT decision, rather than an emotional re-action, based on other people's re-actions, or perceived re-actions, to FALSE information, and/or deception!
I've posted this before, on another political subject....
People who are deceived, are not particularly 'evil' people..they have just been deceived..that's all....because people, in general, will make the best decisions for their well being, given whatever information they have received, on which to make that decision..and that is not 'evil'.... The 'evil', is in the ones who knowingly pass false information to another to gain a result in THEIR best interests, and if the other person takes his advice, and in being deceived, but making the best decision he could, ends up in some way, suffering an injury to their well being...Fair enough?...
Now I could go on about 'political agendas' that do, and will do, that very thing and have, all through history........but I think we could all fill in the blanks, and maybe even argue ourselves to 'death by boredom', so let's NOT go there.....
..Instead, let's go to the positive side...
In the people you have met through the years, usually there is 'something' about that individual that there is a unique quality...something of substance...something worth holding up and defending...something of special value....most all of us have that, and recognizes it's near, when someone else has it...right?

OK, in the list of life's priorities, that which is special to you, and in the order of their importance...some even being regarded as 'sacred'(not to be confused with religious)in their inner importance, and you meet someone in whose priorities is sex, either hetero or homo,..and because of their priorities, sex, recreational or otherwise, becomes a higher priority than the 'specialness of you are', that it causes you to not regard your 'being' enough to guard/defend it...AND not find it a priority to pass down the special uniqueness to the next generation, with loving nurturing...because you do not have that priority....who am I to argue?...You can do what you want...AS LONG as it doesn't bring danger or harm to another....problem is, sex, whether hetero or homo, CAN and DOES endanger other people to not only STD's(HIV/AIDS), but also hurt and heartache, should one of the people get emotionally involved...and then there is the following break-up, or cheating..or whatever(you fill in the blanks)....also, multiple sexual encounters with multiple people has a negative effect on our 'pair bonding mechanisms'....(no deception there!)
Now, when people, in need to fulfill their sexual priority, so much that they are more concerned with their next 'romantic encounter', than making sure they are not infecting someone else, then those people, hetero or homo, should, at least, be informed to regard others, ...and even themselves, shouldn't they?.....Some other people may not even desire to associate with those kind of people....and that's OK, too....
But, if someone does not think that what is in themselves is not WORTH enough to safeguard, and pass on...that's THEIR prerogative!!
I do NOT have to believe their rationale..I do NOT have to agree with their rationale.....but when other people LIE and deceive about it, then it becomes a greater issue. When a political group issues and promotes FALSE information regarding that, then there IS something 'EVIL' about that!!.....and in our 'concern' and 'compassion', don't you think that WE SHOULD be telling people the truth about it???....and let the people make their INTELLIGENT choice, based on the truth.....instead 'agreeing with them', about regarding something within them of not having 'enough worth'?????

Are we still allowed to 'wonder'???

Stringsinger: "Choice requires that an intelligent decision must be made about something based on factual material."



GfS