Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980
Again, that is exactly how the Nazis "sold" those yellow stars & pink triangles... "don't worry, we just need to make you identifiable to keep you safe; nobody is trying to kill you or anything." Uh-huh. 
I've discussed this on another thread, but I'll say again: The separate bathrooms are less about who is attracted to whom, and more about who shares body parts with whom. I am honestly more comfortable changing & using the bathroom around lesbians than gay or straight men, because we have the same parts... I understand women, they understand me, and we're not all that enthralled about what another woman has between her legs (or on her chest). So no, this doesn't mean we need to have mixed-gender bathrooms - but I really wouldn't care that much if we did, since I'm not afraid every straight man wants to rape me.  |
I don't think men would mind sharing the bathroom with women. I think its the women who tend to oppose sharing bathrooms. But it probably largely depends on what kinds of bathrooms we are talking about.
If we are talking about a bathroom shared by multiple people but at different times, that's fine. But having a man peeing in a urinal, right next to a women peeing in a toilet, probably isn't going to get a lot of favor by most Americans.
The same goes for showers. You might share the same shower, but its doubtful for women and men to be sharing anything remotely similar to an "open shower".
As for the Nazi's and badges. I think you are really comparing apples to oranges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
What do homosexuals have to do with men cheating on their wives, and out of wedlock childbirth?
Go fix your self, I'm just fine, and don't need you or anyone else to "fix" me.
You sound like someone who hates that women have equal standing in this country. That is YOUR problem, go fix it. But I don't think you are going to get many women to agree.
The practical limitations of reality are that if you can't handle yourself around other people, maybe YOU shuold stay away from other people.
As for the 99% stat, YOU made that argument, it is up to you to back up YOUR claim.
|
I was talking in response to him saying I was a crazy bigot, who wanted women in burkas, and incapable of leaving the house without male accompaniment.
That isn't what I want. But you do have to ask yourself why they advocate those things.
I remember a woman talking about how after we "liberated" Afghanistan, many women stopped wearing the burka, and so did she. But then she said that she didn't feel as safe as she did with the burka on.
The problem with talking about policies in this world. It seems to be that anytime you advocate anything that might be for the protection of women, it gets branded that you hate women.
For instance, what if there was a "marriage badge", or some other kind of semi-permanent item that people had to wear if they were married(or even in a relationship). I know the wedding ring is a good identifier, but it doesn't really stop cheating men from seeking out unknowing women. Nor does it help if you aren't yet married.
I mean, wouldn't it be much easier for single men, if they could more easily spot single women in social settings? I know I get quite confused.
The problem is that, if you said women in relationships should wear an identifying item. You'll get denounced as an evil bigot who wants to own and control women. Even if you are really trying to protect them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
The good news is that the anti-gay bigots are clearly in the minority now. Americans are too-well educated to buy into their nonsense. They've lost.
|
I'll give you that gays have won. I wouldn't say its because of education. I would say its more because, gays are the loudest group of people in the entire country. They will not accept anything but total acceptance, and sit around name-calling anyone who opposes as an evil bigot. And in the political-correct society we live in, where the worst evil a person can commit would be to be a bigot or racist. Then you have destroyed any philosophical foundation for resistance to what is necessarily a bad outcome.
I mean, you are advocating dysfunction. The same goes for multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is necessarily dysfunction. Women having children out of wedlock, is dysfunction. Everything liberals advocate, is increasing social dysfunction. But there still is no longer any basis for resistance.
You may have won. But what did you win?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer
Shows he does not know biology , lactose intolerance is an inherited situation from an ancestry where milk from cows was not consumed. It does not make one inferior one bit, neither does being gay. I am happy being a gay male, I am happy with my life, I would have it no other way.
|
It is a genetic mutation that derived because of animal husbandry of cattle, I think around 5000 years ago. Being able to continue drinking milk into older age was beneficial because it increases your access to protein. And thus, people with the genetic mutation tended to be healthier in those kinds of societies than people without the mutation.
Every single person who is lactose tolerant today, is necessarily related to same person. And that person lived about 5,000 years ago.
At some point, we may not keep cattle any longer, and at that point, it may longer be an advantage to be lactose tolerant.
Lactase persistence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
