Thread: Homosexuality...does it cause harm???

Originally Posted by Gaymom

I read in another thread that someone was certain that down the road they would be 'Harmed" by allowing homosexuals equal rights?? This came as a shock to me. What possible harm could my partner and I cause, I wondered??

We both work and have worked all our lives, though I am nearing retirement. We keep our house and yard nice and neat, pay our taxes, support our church, help out the kids when they need us (big wedding coming up), spoil our grandsons as much as we can, love spending weekends at our river property......


What harm are we causing??? I am at a loss to come up with an answer. Any thoughts???

This was the line of thought that changed my opinion on this topic.

15 years ago I was "ambivalent" on this at best. Back then I considered it a private sexual matter and as long as both adults were OK with it, I had no objections. However, at the time, I did not feel any need to elevate the discussion beyond the bedroom. I considered it private behavior and no one should be discriminated against for their private behavior as long as it was kept private.

I came, though, to understand that forcing gays people to be "private" while "straight" people we allowed to be open and demonstrative was harmful to gays. It forced them into unhealthy behaviors and unhealthy relationships (both gay and straight) that was causing these people immeasurable harm. Once I came to understand that my position, as harmless as it seemed, was harmful toward all gay people I asked the next logical question.

Is there a justification for this harm.

As harmful as prison can be I can justify putting molesters, rapists, robbers, murderers there because of the harm they cause others. I can even justify taking a person's life if the harm they are causing or the threat they pose is great enough but, what is the harm or threat gay people pose?

Well, try as I might all I could come up with was that I might be offended or made uncomfortable. That's it. Well guess what? I still don't want a gay corps marching in the St. Patrick's Day parade any more than I want a "fat guys who like to do it in the kitchen" or "mile high club" group matching in the parade.

There's a time and place for everything and the time for a gay couple to hold hands or kiss goodbye or get a big hug is the same as it is for any straight couple.

The dungpile that people being gay, gays getting married, gays having equal marital rights, gays adopting and whatever needs to be shoveled into the crap wagon.

In the interest of full disclosure:

While I would oppose a gay group or "fat women who like to be on top" or other similar groups marching in the St. Patrick's Day parade I could easily be convinced to allow a group made up of Victoria's secret models, Playboy Bunnies, and Hooters Girls to march in the parade because I am, after all, a pig at heart.

Originally Posted by Crawdadr

Imagined would assume I made these things up, but I did not. I am coming to the discussion from a judeo-christian perspective. Of course my statement assumes that the people involved follow my faith. If they do not then they can feel free to ignore, but if they do follow my faith then they should abide by its rules and conform to the expectations of the Church.

At the same time I also do not believe that any faith should force its rules upon the state and those that do not adhere to its tenets.

As to the author you just mentioned I am afraid I do not have any of his books but I will see if they are on Kindal at a reasonable price.

If you are true Judeo-Christian, the church doesn't make the rules or is not suppose to. The bible and Jesus make the rules. Churches that make rules that don't follow the teaching of Jesus are false teachers. IMO.

Originally Posted by Perriquine

This is apparently the core of your argument, that by not "doing their part" to continue the species (presumably you mean procreating), gay people are causing harm.

I do not think we should accept this argument at face value. Many homosexuals do procreate. Many heterosexuals do not. There are far more heterosexuals than homosexuals. I cannot say with any certainty that there are more non-procreating heterosexuals than non-procreating homosexuals, but I would not be surprised if that were indeed the case. So I'm not persuaded that you can honestly make a blanket statement that condemns homosexuals as harmful. To do so requires us to ignore the harm done by the many heterosexuals who also don't procreate.

You're also asking us to accept as true that not procreating equals working against the continuation of the species. That's a pretty dire accusation. It's not as if homosexuals are trying to make heterosexuals stop breeding more human beings.

Along with this is the assumption that having every person reproduce is beneficial to the continuation of the species. I'm not persuaded that this is true, either. In fact, I'm more inclined to believe that it is more beneficial to the our survival of our species if some people don't breed more humans, so that population levels remain sustainable. Having too many people can be just as big a problem as too few.

So, like most any other anti-gay argument, this one seems to be conforming itself to whatever personal prejudice the person offering it holds, rather than something based in solid facts with practical, real world application. It seems to be about trying to forward some golden ideal without regard for the harm to real people it causes. Not that we shouldn't be principled in our positions, but those principles need to serve something more than personal prejudices.

Thought? If gays never procreated, would gayism eventually weed its way out of existance? Or is it always buried in all beings and is dominant in a small minority of beings.

Originally Posted by wolfsgirl

Singles have the right to get married, if they are hetero, and get those benefits.

Only if they choose someone of the opposite sex.

Originally Posted by Gaymom

What harm are we causing???

Individually, you are tempting people to reject their own common sense by pretending homosexaulity is anything but deviant. Collectively, "gay rights" activists are abusing the legal process so as to use intimidation to produce the same result.

You're welcome.

Originally Posted by Surfer Joe

It drives [commonsensical people] crazy.
Actually, that may be a good thing.

Of course it is, from the perspective of the children of the devil, as they have no greater pleasure in life than to cause others to fall to that to which they fell themselves.

Originally Posted by yguy

Individually, you are tempting people to reject their own common sense by pretending homosexaulity is anything but deviant.

More hateful rhetoric. I believe that what you are communicating in your commentary above is plain old evil and sickening.

Collectively, "gay rights" activists are abusing the legal process so as to use intimidation to produce the same result.

Wow. That is a lot of irrational animus you are expressing here; it's reprehensible. Gay people are correct to fight for their rights under the U.S. Constitution, and THIS today was another battle won. Thank God!!

Of course it is, from the perspective of the children of the devil,...

I don't think you fully fathom the darkness you are exposing withing your own thinking (as indicated in your commentary above). It's chilling stuff and I hope no one is suckered-in by the same.

...as they have no greater pleasure in life than to cause others to fall to that to which they fell themselves.

Now the religious/hateful mumbo-jumbo, employed to generate FEAR. I think that if you could see the error contained within your own words... you would know to tremble yourself.

Originally Posted by Johnny-C

No one is looking for YOUR individual approval. People are looking for EQUAL rights and protections under the law.

Silly notion considering we are talking about marriage. An institution that by design, treats the married unequal to the unmarried. Gays insist the UNEQUAL treatment made available to heterosexual couples because of their unique ability to procreate, also be made available to homosexuals who have no ability to procreate.

Sweden that has had same sex Unions and Marriages as long as about any country that does. ONE HALF of ONE PERCENT of all marriages are same sex marriages. You dont want equal rights. You want the discrimination between the married and unmarried to continue and merely want to ever so slightly expand marriage to include gay couples, likely because you yourself are gay. Gays want all the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage, without any of the parental obligations of marriage. Men and women become husbands and wives and fathers and mothers, ONLY in the case of heterosexual couples. Only the mother who gives birth to a child and the man who fathered the child are obligated by law to provide and care for the child they have created.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Silly notion considering we are talking about marriage. An institution that by design, treats the married unequal to the unmarried. Gays insist the UNEQUAL treatment made available to heterosexual couples because of their unique ability to procreate, also be made available to homosexuals who have no ability to procreate.

Sweden that has had same sex Unions and Marriages as long as about any country that does. ONE HALF of ONE PERCENT of all marriages are same sex marriages. You dont want equal rights. You want the discrimination between the married and unmarried to continue and merely want to ever so slightly expand marriage to include gay couples, likely because you yourself are gay. Gays want all the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage, without any of the parental obligations of marriage. Men and women become husbands and wives and fathers and mothers, ONLY in the case of heterosexual couples. Only the mother who gives birth to a child and the man who fathered the child are obligated by law to provide and care for the child they have created.

If the father is a sperm donor, he has no legal obligations to the child. If the father, or mother sign away their parental rights, they have no obligations to the child.
You keep trying to equate marriage laws to paternity laws.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Silly notion considering we are talking about marriage.

No, not really. Others see a seriousness in it all, that you likely do not. Not saying that you don't take it all seriously in your own way.

An institution that by design, treats the married unequal to the unmarried.

Well, everyone does NOT view marriage in the manner you see fit; that is reality.

Gays insist the UNEQUAL treatment...

You aren't relating the truth there.

...made available to heterosexual couples because of their unique ability to procreate,...

You're right, only depending upon how you are viewing what marriage is. The definition(s) embrace or espouse, aren't as 'universal' as you seem to assume. Can't you begin to see that, after all of this conversation? (I hope that you eventually will.)

...also be made available to homosexuals who have no ability to procreate.

Homosexual couples have decent reasons to pursue to right to marry legally. And in the view of millions, should not be denied a legal union EQUAL to that which heterosexuals enjoy in all American states.

Sweden that has had same sex Unions and Marriages as long as about any country that does.

Okay.

ONE HALF of ONE PERCENT of all marriages are same sex marriages.

Okay.

You dont want equal rights.

You got to this, from where you started? (You FAIL.) That's illogical stuff.

You want the discrimination between the married and unmarried to continue and merely want to ever so slightly expand marriage to include gay couples,...

You are confused/distorted in your thinking, likely because you 'assume' way too much. You don't know what you're saying.

...likely because you yourself are gay.

I'm interested in the ranges of opinions out here, but no... I don't reach all the conclusions you seem to, due to my being "gay". I still wonder what's bouncing around in that head of yours. It's as if you talk about gays, but don't really know anything you are saying.

Gays want all the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage, without any of the parental obligations of marriage.

Ummm... MANY heterosexuals want just the thing you describe above. I've met thousands of HETEROSEXUAL people who would tell you so. Why do you put that up for consideration, as if only a gay couple would want it? (Strangely deceptive, in my view.)

Men and women become husbands and wives and fathers and mothers, ONLY in the case of heterosexual couples.

Many gay couples have children, one way or the other. Stop trying to distort reality.

Only the mother who gives birth to a child and the man who fathered the child are obligated by law to provide and care for the child they have created.

If you want to argue or discuss CUSTODY issues, that is another topic altogether. As far as gay marriage or marriage in general goes... it is not EXCLUSIVELY predicated upon the same. So, what do you REALLY want to talk about?

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Silly notion considering we are talking about marriage. An institution that by design, treats the married unequal to the unmarried. Gays insist the UNEQUAL treatment made available to heterosexual couples because of their unique ability to procreate, also be made available to homosexuals who have no ability to procreate.

Sweden that has had same sex Unions and Marriages as long as about any country that does. ONE HALF of ONE PERCENT of all marriages are same sex marriages. You dont want equal rights. You want the discrimination between the married and unmarried to continue and merely want to ever so slightly expand marriage to include gay couples, likely because you yourself are gay. Gays want all the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage, without any of the parental obligations of marriage. Men and women become husbands and wives and fathers and mothers, ONLY in the case of heterosexual couples. Only the mother who gives birth to a child and the man who fathered the child are obligated by law to provide and care for the child they have created.

Your reasoning contains no logic.

Lots of people get married who have no intention or capability of ever producing any children.
By the same token lots of people have children who are not married

On the other hand lots of gay couples have adopted, had children via surrogates or had children via medical procedures.

Your argument is devoid of both fact and reason.

While traditions may hold that marriage is between men and women for the purpose of procreation the fact is that in real life that is no longer the definition of marriage and traditions change. Until Moore wrote his poem Christmas was a little celebrated holiday that had little religious significance and almost no economic impact.