The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Honestly, I am not convinced being gay is something you are born with, on the basis that I have simply not seen enough evidence to suggest this is the case. I think sexuality is based on a wide range of factors, some of which mah be genetic. But even so, does that make it wrong? No. Who are we to deny people love and freedom simply because they are attracts to the same sex?

You cannot compare homosexuality to paedophilia or incest, and it annoys the hell out of me when people do. Paedophilia is very harmful to society, especially when pedophiles pursue their desires, and I'd say in the majority of circumstances incestuous relationships come about because positions of trust have been abused. With homosexuality there is no threat to society, no abuse, it is simply love between two people.

If you have a problem with that then you're entitled to your opinion, but I can see no way of justifying homophobia.
Reply 41
Original post by michael321
I fully accept that a family with both a mother and a father is the best environment in which to raise a child.


Science doesn't.
Reply 42
Original post by konvictz0007
Firstly these are my views. I have the right and I am entitled to have my views regarding this subject especially as it is always under constant mass scrutiny. Just because you do not agree with me does not mean my rights should be compromised. It is my intention to promote positive discussion of the topic and my points.

Some argue homosexuality is not a choice, one does not choose their sexual orientation. I disagree with that statement because this can also apply to other situations. A lot of people including some scientific researchers also say paedophilia is not chosen by an individual. My issue with this is if society is to accept homosexuals on the basis that they have no choice, then why punish and criminalise paedophiles as they also have no choice?

Humans are limited in their choice, we 'cant' decide what we want. We are designed in a way, this information is stored in our DNA. Society can also have a strong say. Two siblings, a brother and a sister, cannot have a sexual relationship because it goes against etiquette of society and science. He cannot just say 'oh I love my sister, its not affecting you so whats your problem if i go out with her'. I therefore believe choice alone is not justification for homosexuality.

Furthermore if we are to accept the argument 'gays are born gay' we must investigate that claim and examine what it means for humanity. Under the assumption that the argument that they are born gay holds, then it is something which is affecting their ability to reproduce (as they are not attracted to the opposite sex). Then, it is in my belief that by definition of continuity of the human race we must find a way to prevent it as it is, technically speaking, a negative genetic mutation and must be addressed by doctors and medical researchers to preserve continuity.

These are some subjects which I feel strongly about. I am willing to debate issues regarding psychology, health and hygiene, communication, social impacts etc.

This topic is constant in media, social and professional circles. There will always be support for and against, I am simply against due to some points I outlined above. I should not be down voted because of my views (there are plenty of groups which are allowed to have a say no matter how 'wrong' some people think they are such as BNP EDL Extremist Muslims), rather I would like TSR to assess my points. This issue must be discussed if were are to find an eventual solution. I welcome feedback and further discussion.


Just to clarify, are you trying to convince us that homosexuality is wrong or that paedophilia is right? :eek:
Paedophilia = lack of consent... pretty obviously really, isn't it? Your example is flawed.
Reply 44
Original post by konvictz0007
Firstly these are my views. I have the right and I am entitled to have my views regarding this subject especially as it is always under constant mass scrutiny. Just because you do not agree with me does not mean my rights should be compromised. It is my intention to promote positive discussion of the topic and my points.

Some argue homosexuality is not a choice, one does not choose their sexual orientation. I disagree with that statement because this can also apply to other situations. A lot of people including some scientific researchers also say paedophilia is not chosen by an individual. My issue with this is if society is to accept homosexuals on the basis that they have no choice, then why punish and criminalise paedophiles as they also have no choice?

Humans are limited in their choice, we 'cant' decide what we want. We are designed in a way, this information is stored in our DNA. Society can also have a strong say. Two siblings, a brother and a sister, cannot have a sexual relationship because it goes against etiquette of society and science. He cannot just say 'oh I love my sister, its not affecting you so whats your problem if i go out with her'. I therefore believe choice alone is not justification for homosexuality.

Furthermore if we are to accept the argument 'gays are born gay' we must investigate that claim and examine what it means for humanity. Under the assumption that the argument that they are born gay holds, then it is something which is affecting their ability to reproduce (as they are not attracted to the opposite sex). Then, it is in my belief that by definition of continuity of the human race we must find a way to prevent it as it is, technically speaking, a negative genetic mutation and must be addressed by doctors and medical researchers to preserve continuity.


I would rather doctors and researchers put their money and time towards finding cures for diseases and illnesses rather than homosexuality, since that would provide an even better way of preserving life than the alternative. Also, with homosexuality is more acceptable than before, the gay community is more vocal than ever and yet the world population is roughly at 7 billion, I'm pretty sure that the issue of people being homosexual won't damage our birth rates, considering it is possible for gay couples to have children using methods no different to infertile couples anyway.

People who oppose homosexuality always bring incest or pedophillia into the mix, which is annoying because it's not the same thing and shouldn't be compared to each other. You're not actually addressing what's wrong with homosexuality itself by bringing separate issues into it other than 'if we let this, we must let that' when they're completely different. Pedophiles are dangerous if they act on their desires, if they do, they need to be punished because a child can not consent to the relationship and incest is illegal. Homosexuality on the other hand is between two consenting adults is legal and is not the same to these other issues.
Original post by michael321
1) That homosexuality is not a choice is an objectively provable fact. It doesn't matter whether you disagree with it unless you can provide scientific evidence.



But the OP has already said 'A lot of people including some scientific researchers also say paedophilia is not chosen by an individual'... how can you argue with such amazing concrete evidence? :rolleyes:
Reply 46
Original post by michael321
I fully accept that a family with both a mother and a father is the best environment in which to raise a child. However, given that adoption rates are woefully low, the choice is generally not between mum-dad and dad-dad, but rather between dad-dad (or indeed mum-mum) and the state. The care system, in my view, will never be as good at bringing up children as two loving parents who can devote far more time and resources to an adopted child.


I agree; but if that's the case, then surely homosexual adoptive parents should be used only when there are no straight ones available, instead of having equal rights?
Reply 47
Original post by Tommyjw
Im implying we arent designed not to be doing it, with a focus on mentally. Whereas studies have shown things such as family members not being attracted the scents of their family members in order to stop inter-family breeding, and stuff like that.

I'm sorry, you're skewing the representation of incest and homosexuality here. I will outline them to make them analogous to each other:

Family members are designed not to be attracted to their family members to stop inter-family breeding. However, there are exceptions.
Members of a gender are designed not to be attracted to the same gender as it has no evolutionary benefit whatsoever. However, there are exceptions (obviously).

Now clearly one is more socially acceptable than the other (for good reasons). But you asserting that we aren't designed not to be attracted to the same gender is bizarre - if there was no design either way then we would expect a roughly equal homosexual and heterosexual population, which is not the case.


This is not what wikipedia has to say about Paraphilias. Maybe you could source your definition?
(edited 12 years ago)
Surely in that case... there won't be two consenting adults involved? Presumably... the murdered one is not consenting?
Reply 49
damn this is sad. grow the **** up.
Reply 50
Original post by konvictz0007
Where is your evidence on your claims?

The at hand is not paraphillia or orientation, it is addressing one view that many people hold here that two consenting adults are free to do as they wish behind closed doors. Do you agree or disagree with that?


I agree with this view about there being nothing wrong with consensual sex of any sort, do you agree?
Reply 51
*sigh*
Reply 52
Original post by ironandwine
Paedophilia = lack of consent... pretty obviously really, isn't it? Your example is flawed.

I suggest you look up the definition of paedophilia. Hint: it's not a verb.
Reply 53
Would that not be assisted suicide?
Yes, exactly.
Reply 55
Original post by konvictz0007
I am not comparing homosexuality and paedophilia, of course they are very different. I am comparing society's reasoning to accept one and not the other.

If you can accept one on the basis that it is not of choice, then why is the other being punished on that same basis as it is not their choice?


Paedophilia might not be a choice for some folk but about 90% of convicted paedos have been molested as a child which is why they abuse kids as adults. I can only assume that the other 10% chooses paedophilia out of some form of neglect but I hardly think that people are born as paedophiles.
Reply 56
Original post by Chrosson
I suggest you look up the definition of paedophilia. Hint: it's not a verb.


While strictly true, I think this is quite a pedantic point. Acting on paedophilia implies a lack of consent.
Reply 57
Original post by anon1212
I agree with this view about there being nothing wrong with consensual sex of any sort, do you agree?


I certainly do not agree with incest, I personally feel that it is disgusting. Of course I will personally say it is not natural, but in the current day and age, we cannot object to what to consenting adults do behind closed doors as long as it is not harming anyone, be it homosexuality or incest.

Which lead me to the question why would someone accept homosexuality and not incest, you can say in both cases two people love each other, what has it got to do with you?
I'm confused... what are we debating here? :s-smilie:
Just going to point out (like everyone else) that none of the points brought up on here are anything new. Nor are any of them founded with any kind of evidence whatsoever. Nor do any of them hold up to even basic amounts of scrutiny. :s-smilie:

Latest

Trending

Trending