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.
Just for a reminder that question is "what is the REAL harm to ANYone in a committed same-sex relationship?
If society embraces it - Degradation of tradition values in exchange for secular morality that only causes more conflict. We're already seeing it with the shift to things like this bathroom issue.
If society rejects it - increase in mental health issues such as suicide and depression.
If it is extremely hurtful to a large portion of the population then you are saying that a large portion are monogamous. Got any data to back that up? Your statements have no basis in reality. From a logical perspective, if a large portion was not promiscuous then we shouldn't see huge HIV infection rates in this demographic. Care to explain why?
It is still just another form of sexual discrimination and I can use the same arguments that you throw at me.
"it's none of your business what people do in their private homes"
"Who are you to deny someone the right to love each other?"
Once again evading the question, jeffbase. What proportion is monogamous is irrelevant to the question, and no one is saying that. Can you answer the question, jeffbase?
If society embraces it - Degradation of tradition values in exchange for secular morality that only causes more conflict. We're already seeing it with the shift to things like this bathroom issue.
If society rejects it - increase in mental health issues such as suicide and depression.
No win situation either way.
Actually prior to the bathroom laws, transgender people choose the bathroom gender that they identified with , it is the new laws that are telling them that it is wrong to do so. It was religious people who are pushing the bathroom laws to solve a problem that did not exist.
So is the best way to prevent suicides among gays and lesbians is to deny them the right to have lasting relationships with the legal benefits that come with than, teach at schools that they are degenerates, hassle and bully them letting them know they are abominations and to let remind the straight people that gays are wrong and sinful and it is not OK to let them thrive in our society? Will their mental health improve if they have to hid in the closet again, not telling anyone, meeting each others in secret and fleeting relationships .
What is your alternative, we know you are against SSM but if you think that society accepting that gays and lesbians are within decent society causes mental health issues and depression among the straight community what is it exactly that you would like society to do instead of what is happening today? Here is your chance, if you were king for a day how would you "improve" your society in regard to straight and homosexual people. Forget the current laws and constitution as they do not matter as you have not been appointed king for the day so just what would be your perfect solution involving LBGT people and the laws?
I hope that no one insults Jeff or others if they chime in with their solutions as I do often hear that they are against SSM but what exactly are they for.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,945,607 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
If society embraces it - Degradation of tradition values in exchange for secular morality that only causes more conflict. We're already seeing it with the shift to things like this bathroom issue.
If society rejects it - increase in mental health issues such as suicide and depression.
No win situation either way.
Bet you been sharing a bathroom with the opposite sex for you whole life.
Bet you been sharing a bathroom with the opposite sex for you whole life.
Men and women have different bathroom habits, they need separate public restrooms.
No woman wants to sit on a wet toilet seat that a man probably peed on and no wants to see tampon disposals. In college, I had a job where I had to clean both restrooms every now and again and they were equally nasty with the womens own usually being worse.
Its not the end of the world if we were to have neutral restrooms, but it seems like everywhere else in the world knows what bathroom to use, but we (USA) are pushing this shared bathroom nonsense.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,945,607 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAAN
Men and women have different bathroom habits, they need separate public restrooms.
No woman wants to sit on a wet toilet seat that a man probably peed on and no wants to see tampon disposals. In college, I had a job where I had to clean both restrooms every now and again and they were equally nasty with the womens own usually being worse.
Its not the end of the world if we were to have neutral restrooms, but it seems like everywhere else in the world knows what bathroom to use, but we (USA) are pushing this shared bathroom nonsense.
I recall my surprise that the washroom attendant in Paris was a woman in the men's washrooms. She was there to keep it clean, hand out towels and apparently collect tips. The urinals? They were behind a frosted glass partition that hid from the knees to the mid back.
If it is extremely hurtful to a large portion of the population then you are saying that a large portion are monogamous. Got any data to back that up? Your statements have no basis in reality. From a logical perspective, if a large portion was not promiscuous then we shouldn't see huge HIV infection rates in this demographic. Care to explain why?
It is still just another form of sexual discrimination and I can use the same arguments that you throw at me.
"it's none of your business what people do in their private homes"
"Who are you to deny someone the right to love each other?"
With the promiscuous thing, You're still missing the point or just flat out going matrix on me...
I don't rule out the likelihood that gay men are more promiscuous than the general population but you are acting as if that means homosexuality in general must be wrong from even a secular standpoint...THIS IS A SILLY ARGUMENT THAT IS GETTING YOU NO WHERE! That's not much different than saying you shouldn't bartender because you are more likely to abuse alcohol or you shouldn't be a gigging musician because you are more likely to sleep around, take drugs, and/or abuse alcohol...from my experience as a gigging musician, it the might even be the majority in certain musical circles but that doesn't mean I'm against live bands!
As I said before, from a secular standpoint, incest may be a case by case thing because of the family elements which could make the psychology more questionable do to manipulation that can come from family members involved so unless you can come up with equally controversial reasons why Homosexual relationships should be a case by case or forbidden by law (as you probably want), then your analogy is not equal...but this is also offtopic so...Nice Dodging, Neo!
If society embraces it - Degradation of tradition values in exchange for secular morality that only causes more conflict. We're already seeing it with the shift to things like this bathroom issue.
If society rejects it - increase in mental health issues such as suicide and depression.
No win situation either way.
Well, an actual attempt at an answer just before my last post. What does "degradation...." even MEAN? I asked for real harm, not some airy speculations about a difference in morality. Whether society accepts it or not makes no difference in the question of REAL harm from the relationship itself. Let's deal with the real world and not fanciful speculations fueled by prejudice, either yours or that of society in general.
Well, an actual attempt at an answer just before my last post. What does "degradation...." even MEAN? I asked for real harm, not some airy speculations about a difference in morality. Whether society accepts it or not makes no difference in the question of REAL harm from the relationship itself. Let's deal with the real world and not fanciful speculations fueled by prejudice, either yours or that of society in general.
real degradation?
boys in girls rooms.
Making charity a tax.
Unarmed means Innocent.
people forcing their beliefs on others as the only logical choice.
massive anti american protest. I understand social injustice, but anti "truth, justice, and liberty for all people" thats another story. Lets call it what it is ... anti-white-american.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
That's not much different than saying you shouldn't bartender because you are more likely to abuse alcohol or you shouldn't be a gigging musician because you are more likely to sleep around, take drugs, and/or abuse alcohol...from my experience as a gigging musician, it the might even be the majority in certain musical circles but that doesn't mean I'm against live bands!
