Homosexuality...does it cause harm???

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???

 

Couldn't imagine what you're doing wrong.

 

River property? Can you adopt me?

Seriously, I have no idea or answer, so...I'd say ignore people but that's impossible, so just pity them that they aren't as happy as you.

 

Nothing, the rabid religious right has been keeping America back for decades.

 

No harm being done.

I have two friends, a gay couple, both professional people who have been together for nearly 25 years. One was my doctor for three years. Both have spent most of their professional lives living and working in developing countries. They have recently been posted to another developing country, Myanmar.

I am proud to call them friends.

 

No. The problems are with those who too narrowly define and fear others.

And those who pursue, persecute, bully and discriminate against homosexuals to the degree that they set-off neuroses within themselves and others should be disregarded overall. They are the ones doing mankind the greatest disservice of all.

 

You are expecting conservatives to use common sense.

That is where the problem lays.

 

I suspect that person was a fearful bigot.

No harm whatsoever. Homophobes and those biased against homosexuals DO NOT have fully logical or valid reasons to what they express as concerns. People are learning more and more each day, that such illogical people are making things up.

In the minds of "homophobes" you are nevertheless, unworthy of FULL acceptance and privilege. That's what homophobia combined with bigotry does to people's heads.

You cannot answer such bigoted illogic. You CAN stand proudly and FIGHT (legally AND politically) for EQUALITY. And make no mistake about it, you WILL have to be READY fight, or those homophobes and bigots WILL run all over you. Essentially, the laws which allow certain people to feel 'comfortable' and 'right' discriminating against homosexuals, have to be changed over time. That is a political and legal battle that will NOT end in our lifetimes.

 

"Homosexuality...does it cause harm???"

nope, except to homophobes, to them it causes a irrational fear

 

It drives homophobes and bigots crazy.
Actually, that may be a good thing.

 

No harm to others but it does harm his soul. But that is no reason to exclude them from equal rights under the law.

 

Good thread .
No religious bigots and Jesus Freaks here . Yet .

CRAWDADR , As YOU introduced the thought of effects on souls , why not learn something about them ? Start with Doctor Michael Newton and then come back and give us a rational narrative rather than some imagined mumbo jumbo . Enjoy .

 

I'm a Jesus Freak. Was I acting "bigoty"?

 

Are you interested in a real answer or is this just a "pat me on the head and tell me its ok" thread?

 

Seems like the, well I can't say bigoted, but you know, certain types here.

 

Well aren't you quick to judge..... there differently seems to be certain types here

 

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.

 

Why don't you express your opinion on the OP? Let's see if I'm wrong.

 

The harm is in the awareness of doing wrong.

Homosexuals are not bad people, they're not going to hell, they shouldn't be shunned. They are engaged in behavior, which if taken to the extreme would be disastrous for the continuity of the human species.

Evolution put the "nicest feeling nerve endings" in the sexual regions of the body for a reason. It was to enhance the ease of furthering the species by procreation. Homosexuality does the opposite of enhancing the ease of doing this. Everyone knows that, including homosexuals.

So it becomes like littering, or recycling, or voting. Everyone knows that if one person litters or doesn't recycle, or doesn't vote, no biggie. But it's the PRINCIPLE of the thing that makes it important.

If you don't recycle, a tiny part of you knows you're screwing up. Will it affect your life? Not much, but a little. And if your life-behavior does a LOT of these little things that are counter-productive to a perfect society for this species, your awareness that you're not "holding up your little part of the bargain" will damage your self-esteem, and self-esteem is one of the human's greatest gifts, and most important tools in enjoying life.

Working against the direct continuation of the species is, in principle, a much more serious breach than not recycling (tho the latter grows in importance day by day ).

So the homosexual's awareness (conscious or not) that he/she is not "holding up his part of the bargain", is that much more damaging to his 'self' than not recycling.

And an unhappy person is not good for society either.

That is where the damage to the individual and to society comes in. It's not overt. But neither is the damage from not recycling. It is more important, however.

On the surface, a homosexual thinks that to be as happy as he wants to be, he must be homosexual.

That's not true.

 

The world's economy is driven by the sales of condoms and since you probably don't have much use for them, your absence in the Condom Commodities have a crippling effect on the global market.

By being together, you are depriving men of your much needed company. Studies have shown out of 16 men you have rejected, 12 of them have committed violent crimes, in addition to one of them being so torn he moved to the South Pacific and worked on a secret project that actually created Hurricane Katrina. You are responsible for all their lives.

Your relationship has retarded natural growth of fellow citizens who only understand the social world in terms of a patriarchal structure. Seeing your relationship, these people were so confused they became hermits, anti-social agitators, and drug addicts who relied on medication for coping. At least the pharmaceutical industry says thank you.

There are many more examples but do you really need to see them?

 

Unless you can prove that principle is even remotely plausible, the foundation of your argument is baseless. You might as well say:

"All outdoor sports utilizing an independent object such as a ball should be banned because nobody has full control of that object and if thrown high enough, could hit a 757 and cause a serious plane crash. It doesn't matter it has not happened, what matters is the principle."

Here is the principle I use for judging intimate personal relationships: If the parties are adults of sound mind, consent without any coercion, and no harm is being produced to others, I have nothing to say in terms of rejecting or approving their relationship because I have no reason to care. Under those conditions, people who want to interrupt others' relationships through any means, including legislative inequality, are simply trying to control what is not theirs in any way at all.

 

harm? I dunno, do you kick dogs or kill cats?

with respect to equal rights; I'm not sure where you live but in the USA you are denied nothing because you have sex differently than the other 97% .

You can be POTUS if you get enough votes

you can start your own business, you can be a CEO

you can go to college, buy what ever you can afford, ride on any bus or public transit, eat where ever you wish etc etc etc

you brought up 2 issues

harm
equal rights

harm can only be answered by the kind of person you are

equal rights is nonsense because nobody is denied anything because of how they have sex.

 

So homosexuals, will in principle, lead to the end of the human race?

Simply asinine.

 

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.

 

there is a point that over population becomes a detriment too....