Is Gay Marriage Immoral?

i think one argument for the immorality of homosexuality would be the shirking of a biological and familial responsibility to pass on genetic information. Children have a duty to their ancestors to carry on the family line. Of course, that aspect of morality is really between the parties involved.

quote:

---

My neighbour is a lesbian and is in a long term relationship with another woman (they live together). She has children from a previous relationship. Does that now make her lesbianism moral?

---

actually strictly speaking, not hers, but mayhaps her partner's. lesbianism doesn't really factor in

quote:

---

Also does that make heterosexual relationships where there is a conscious choice not to have children immoral? My partners aunt had herself sterilised at a young age to guarentee that there was no longer any possibility for her to have children. Is her marriage immoral?

---

if her parents condoned it, then what can i say?
edit:
nm, parents aren't final say, yes, it's immoral

quote:

---

Anyway, even apart from the two objections I made above I don't think that anyone has an obligation or a responsibility to reproduce. I certainly don't think people are born on condition that they reproduce (or even attempt to reproduce) at a later date. Peoples lives are there own to live as they will.

---

we have a difference of opinion, my view is based on an opinion you don't hold, so yeah. People aren't born on the condition they reproduce, it'd just be dutiful of them to do so; and to me duty is an aspect of morality.Edited by AlienInvader, : corrected your moral lesbianism to immoral lesbianismEdited by AlienInvader, : nmEdited by AlienInvader, : realised, yeah disservice to the people before parents

i'm saying her partner is immoral... she's fine.yes, squandered oppurtunity/investment... immoral, but less so than the children thing... our parents "live on" through us... it's sorta like killing them and grandparents... if the ancestors don't mind... then it's like euthanasia, which i'm ok with.

it's a difficult case to make, and while the viewpoint in some aspects reflect my own, i tend to shy away from absolutes. one can make a case for it, but it's stretching it.

more or less...

quote:

---

In fact, I'd love to see a rational explanation on how use of separate bathrooms based on sex is any different than race...

---

fundamentally different machinery. i'd like to see a woman use a urinal. Plus we're disgusting, i doubt woman would want to inhabit the same... conditions that we leave our restrooms in. of course, nothing really restricts woman from using male restrooms, and some do, in times of "crisis" ^_^. The difference in race is that, though racists can claim that they are "superior" there is no real physical difference between the races. If a race crapped out of their heads we'd have a separate bathroom for them too.edit: right now, the signs are really to help us find the machines more suited to our... needs. They male/female division is not enforced.Edited by AlienInvader, : addendum

quote:

---

That's exactly why it makes sense to coeducationalize the bathrooms - urinals for the men, toilets for the women (and for the men only when needed). The status quo provides inadequate facilities for the women and often-unused facilities for the men.

---

as it is now, it's not really segregated as nobody is enforcing it, as people have pointed out, and yes i know they have female urinals in asia, and yes, i can imagine it would be possible to use an american urinal.

quote:

---

That's a misconception. In fact, women are much messier in the bathroom than men.

---

you're right, women piss all over the floor too

quote:

---

Which points us back toward the topic: It isn't a real physical difference between whites and blacks that causes bigotry - it's a perceived difference. Bigots perceive blacks as "dirty" and "disgusting" and don't want to share a bathroom with them.

---

you're the one who brought up a really crappy analogy.

quote:

---

No I'm not. I only responded to an existing discussion about "bathroom bigotry".

---

well then i'm wrong, but it's still a crappy analogy because division by sex really isn't bigotry, as much as saying... guys should get tampons.

oh,i share your viewpoint and i didn't even read your original argument, i was simply responding to a bad analogyEdited by AlienInvader, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Why could you not have a single bathroom with just regular toilets?

---

bottleneck

quote:

---

Or what would be the reason you couldn't have a single bathroom with both toilets and urinals usable by both sexes (since you already do have this for men)?

---

i think the reason you don't have women's urinals isn't because it can't be used, but because it is more difficult to maintain privacy. the urinal would need a stall also.

quote:

---

There are physical differences between the races, that's what allows us to identify people of different races.

---

And as i said before, nobody enforces segregation of bathrooms based on sex. Women use the men's room all the time.

quote:

---

There are physical differences between the races, that's what allows us to identify people of different races.

---

i meant structural differences to the extent of something like, secondary sexual structures.

quote:

---

Believe it or not we all function the same way. Our urinary tracts have a singular opening that pass liquid waste in generally a stream, and our assholes are all the same no matter which sex. It can all be collected the same way.

---

quote:

---

In any case a person not wanting to share a toilet with a person of a different race may be completely separate from feelings of superiority/inferiority even if they have those feelings as well. People really can feel uncomfortable engaging in that activity (and many others) around people they "feel" are different than themselves.

---

they are free to hold that view, of course we all agree that that also shouldn't influence public policy. I maintain that sexual "segregation" is justified in a practical context with little regards to bigotry.

quote:

---

The segregation of toilet activities boils down to the same thing, someone does not feel comfortable doing that with someone who is identifiably different around. It is totally irrational no matter the chosen criteria.

---

no, it boils down to... we don't pee the same way, and practical constraints probably prohibit the "lots of toilets and lots of urinals" thing. size of rooms, privacy, safety.

quote:

---

Believe it or not we all function the same way. Our urinary tracts have a singular opening that pass liquid waste in generally a stream, and our assholes are all the same no matter which sex. It can all be collected the same way.

---

so, they've got dicks too? wow, really similar. Yeah they've got urethras and all that, but they can't really aim. We have actual developmental differences. Unless of course you're telling me, women can impregnate each other now.

no, i still would have argued the analogy. ^_^

quote:

---

You're moving back and forth... hey just like an alien invader! Now I get it.

---

oddly enough, i've never actually enjoyed that game

quote:

---

Bottlenecks suggest creating a bigger bathroom facility and does not has nothing to do with whether there are just toilets or toilets and urinals. Obviously if one is just peeing it doesn't matter if one uses a urinal or toilet... or does the presence of a toilet force one into other activities?

---

bottlenecking was regarding that segment that i quoted specifically.
and it involves, i guess turnover rate for men in hte toilet case. urinals take less time, oh and less water.

quote:

---

Right. As a guy I'll walk into women's rooms at whim and tell them you told me it's okay. Think that'll float? Think I won't get kicked out or arrested? Yeah some women can use men's rooms and it is tolerated, but it isn't always, and it almost never cuts the other way.

---

... if the men's room is broken, i don't think anyone would mind. It doesn't cut the other way because it's never necessary and never happens.

quote:

---

Oh by the way, you may not be aware but there is a physical condition where men's urethras do not open at the tip and instead open under or back toward the shaft, forcing guys to use sit down methods of peeing. If they can use men's rooms, why couldn't women.

---

i wasn't aware and i don't think it matters in as much as public norms.

quote:

---

Privacy and safety issues are EXACTLY the same issues which can be used across race as across sex. And they usually stem from the same place... paranoia.

---

not quite as easy to use privacy and safety across race. Sexual dimorphism is a little more... pronounced than racial... ??poly-morphism??

quote:

---

While you have asserted this position, you have provided no logical argument in support of it. There is still no reason why separate urinary openings would justify different restrooms.

---

... says you. seperate urinary openings justify different toilets. different toilets are facilitated by separate facilities. how they are facilitated? trafficking of people, safety, all that good stuff

quote:

---

Blacks did get to use white's rooms in the same way... when someone white didn't care about the rules and allowed them to use it. And by the way I don't believe the restroom racial segregation was a law, so police would not have been enforcing it in and of themselves.

---

some things were harsher than laws. society was wrong.
"Whites could physically beat Blacks with impunity. Blacks had little legal recourse against these assaults because the Jim Crow criminal justice system was all-White: police, prosecutors, judges, juries, and prison officials."
What was Jim Crow - Jim Crow Museum

quote:

---

Their urethra simply does not develop up the shaft

---

that's part of my frickin argument. for lack of a better word, the "shaft" makes all the difference.

quote:

---

And some men actually have cocks so small they are practically large clits. So what?

---

i may go back and forth, but at least i'm on target.

quote:

---

And as far as impregnation, are you suggesting this comes from peeing and shitting in the same bathroom?

---

i'm actually highlighting developmental differences, in that it is impossible for women to impregnate women, even if one of them did have sperm, for very obvious physicalthat i can argue for it at all, whereas i cannot argue for racial segregation, indicates that there is a decent difference between the two.

quote:

---

know I have had to... and did. Now where is your theory?

---

then you must not be a man ^_^. and i was joking with the never
i've never been in a situation, hell i can't even dream of a situation in which a man needs to use the women's facilities... of course that statement also argues for the disparity between the two facilities, but yeah.

quote:

---

How does it take less time to pee in a urinal than a toilet. If you have ten people seeking to use 4 toilets, or 2 toilets and 2 urinals

---

don't have to navigate a stall/door, hence negligible save in time so comes down to water.

quote:

---

you will only potentially have longer wait times at the latter (less options).

---

... i've never heard of more options being a bad thing or taking more time.

quote:

---

I might add that instead of urinals you could just use a trough system which is usable by both.

---

privacy and space constraints

quote:

---

If water is an issue then you get toilets with separate flush buttons for nature of waste (which is useful for men and women).

---

wouldn't work like that, unless you mean those high pressure low flows.

quote:

---

So you say. It may be less common that people cross sexual lines but that does not make them any more clear.

---

... i'm actually saying, there's a definitive line. racial differences are not really structural differences, more like structural modifications.

quote:

---

Uhhhhh... I didn't say minorities weren't hurt by racism. I said separate toilets weren't by law, any more than separate toilets for women, and minorities were able to use them in the same way people of different sexes use opposite sex bathrooms.

---

i'm saying it was an unwritten law and minorities weren't able to use them any more than minorities were able to talk to white women. That wasn't a law either i don't believe.

quote:

---

How? Men can use women's toilets and vice versa because they are identical. Urinals as they are presently designed can be changed to allow all women to use them (more of a trough design seen in some european areas). Or we can just stick with toilets.

---

the great thing about the design is the small space requirements, the conservation of water, the accesibility, and the easy privacy.
urinals for women, would get rid of the space for a stall, because it's not easy to make private. All it would retain is the conservation of water. a toilet with less funcionality basically.

quote:

---

There goes your argument. At least you get it in the end, this is about norms and not about physical necessity.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Oh by the way, you may not be aware but there is a physical condition where men's urethras do not open at the tip and instead open under or back toward the shaft, forcing guys to use sit down methods of peeing. If they can use men's rooms, why couldn't women.

---

​

i wasn't aware and i don't think it matters in as much as public norms.

---

i don't think these, i'm assuming rare cases, should effect public policy, and i don't really get what you are pointing out.

quote:

---

What does that have to do with the kind of toilet one needs to use? If this is the rape issue, what prevents a rapist from raping a woman in a women's room... the sign on the door?

---

nothing at all prevents him, but you don't really need to go and facilitate the contact

quote:

---

If your argument is correct then we should have a bathroom for sitdown toilets and one for urinals.

---

i think that would be my ideal, but somehow they don't go for it.arghh this is frustrating and so so so so off topic.