Welcome to Gaia! ::

It's probably a greater enlightening in regards to birth control.

Teenagers may not be able to put on a condom right, but American culture is sure as hell aware of birth control, I'd take a random guess that if you were to watch television at least two hours a day, for a week straight, you'd see something about the pill, condoms, Planned Parenthood, PlanB, and all of those things.

With that being said, I think people are not even envisioning a world where they need abortion, and as a result set up the morale that they won't choose it.

Kids are very liberal, but most of them are stupid as well: the pro-life one's included. I know a few people who are openly pro-choice and laugh at the though of pro-life.

I wouldn't trust them with much, a child is a whole other story...

Hmm. Out of all my friends there is only one (besides my sister) who is against abortion. And even she says it's okay for a girl to have an abortion if her pregnancy is the result of a rape. I know a lot of girls that just come right out and tell me "If I get pregnant, I'm having an abortion."
So where are all the pro-life youths in my area?! gonk

Well, it's usually accepted that younger people are generally Pro-Choice, and on Gaia it has been the general agreement in here that there are mostly Pro-Choicers because of the generally limited age groups that post here. For instance, you don't have many people who are 30+ on Gaia. Some, but not many.

And, I find it kind of amusing that you think that her being a lesbian is a criteria for why she should vote... So if you aren't a lesbian, than it doesn't matter whether you vote? I think I understand what you mean; She needs to "fight for her right to get married" and whatnot, but I just think it's strange to think that her need to fight for her rights are accented above the need for your average heterosexual Joe. Because, really, everyone is affected by the voting procedure, and everyone has a chance that their life will become either better or worse based on how the voting goes. So why is it more important that a lesbian preserve her rights then it is for a heterosexual to preserve his rights?

Heterosexual Joe has just about as much to lose, however, if a Democrat is voted into office.

With a Republican in office, there is a slightly larger chance that homosexual marriages will be made illegal. With a Democrat in office, there is a slightly larger chance that privately owned guns will be made illegal. And there's other things that have a slightly higher chance, depending on who's elected, of course.

But you see what I mean? I do understand what you are saying, I really do, it's just that I don't understand why people think that lesbians and gays have more reason to vote then gun owners, or anyone else. Especially with the issues of gun control and homosexual marriages; Both issues have one side that believes that they are protected by the constitution, while their opposites don't care/don't see it.

I see what you mean.

I personally do not think that lesbians have more reason to vote than gun owners per se... Anyone who has a right being threatened is compelled to vote, but one who has more rights threatened where those rights are integral (ie the right to gun ownership being threatened is no where near as dire and demanding of voting than say... the right to life being threatened, I'm sure you'd agree, no?) then I'd think that person is more pressured to vote.

When one weighs the threat to the legal rights in question, the threat to homosexual unions is far far greater than the threat to the pre-established and protected right to gun ownership. If republicans gain offices everywhere the threat to banning non-traditional unions is far far greater than the threat of gun ownership being banned for all if democrats took offices everywhere (restrictions maybe, but not total bannings, as is threatened with homosexual unions).

Further it doesn't help that I believe sexual orientation is innate and not learned. So to me the threat against homosexual unions would be as severe as a threat to interracial unions. Like Jabberwock says - gun ownership is not a trait one is born with that is being affected like sexual orientation would be (I believe). If you disagree with the nature of sexual orientation then that is perfectly fine you can argue otherwise and I'd agree with you (if sexual orientation was not innate and learned, then the threat to sexual unions would be more on par with gun ownership only assuming that gun ownership was not yet established as a right).

So basically, it isn't that Joe isn't pressured to vote... it's that a homosexual's right to marry being threatened is far worse than joe's right to own a gun based on the nature of homosexuality and the fact that one right is far more threatened than another. Homosexual Sara should feel more pressure to vote to defend her rights than Heterosexual Joe based on the nature of the right and the threat to it. Joe still feels pressure to vote, just not as much as I'd think Sara ought to feel (unless gun ownership means as much to him as the ability to marry a woman he loves).