I can't think of a good one, and yet it is banned throughout the world and there are people in the West who think it should be banned in Western countries.
Seems to have been the genuine opinion of some anti homosexual politicians that it was always exploitative / rapey... possibly based on what they'd seen going on when they were at school and in their professional lives.
I can't think of a good one, and yet it is banned throughout the world and there are people in the West who think it should be banned in Western countries.
If you're asking from a theoretical point of view, I guess you could've made an argument 40 or 50 years ago about the far higher risk of transmitting HIV through male homosexual sex than heterosexual sex? And if a disease with a similar pattern of transmission were to appear overnight and become endemic, that could be reasonable.
If you're asking practically, as in why people would want to ban it right now, I don't think there's any reason ever given other than religious tbh. I don't think I've ever come across a homophobic atheist.
There is not any other reason. But people seem to think that religious reasons are not as acceptable as non-religious reasons, forsome reason.
Maybe because it's not sensible to ban things on the basis of a random person's written view of things from thousands of years ago? If we did ban things on this basis, then you wouldn't be able to buy shellfish or mixed fabrics, for example.
Because they think that 2 people of the same sex doesn't make sense because their not biologically able to have children basically through sex. Like sperm and egg connection. It don't work with 2 people of the same gender. I think this could be one of the factors.
I can't think of a good one, and yet it is banned throughout the world and there are people in the West who think it should be banned in Western countries.
I'd like to say beforehand that I absolutely don't support homophobia; I have the misfortune of knowing some against homosexuality that are mostly otherwise good people.
- Increased chance of STDs - "Unnatural"; little to no accounts of it pre-20th century - Possible eventual proliferation may lead to human extinction [I know, I know, this is so stupid] - Acceptance of homosexuality may lead to increased bestiality and objectophilia due to "the influence that you can have sex with anything now"
There is not any other reason. But people seem to think that religious reasons are not as acceptable as non-religious reasons, for some reason.
That's because they're largely not... in comparison with biological/factual factors. Because at the end of the day, that's your belief. You cannot prove any of it and that's fine but it's not a good thing to base laws and whatnot on.
Because they think that 2 people of the same sex doesn't make sense because their not biologically able to have children basically through sex. Like sperm and egg connection. It don't work with 2 people of the same gender. I think this could be one of the factors.
Not a reason in the slightest either... many people don't have kids, many can't have kids, and procreating isn't somehow the goal of being.
I'd like to say beforehand that I absolutely don't support homophobia; I have the misfortune of knowing some against homosexuality that are mostly otherwise good people.
- Increased chance of STDs - "Unnatural"; little to no accounts of it pre-20th century - Possible eventual proliferation may lead to human extinction [I know, I know, this is so stupid] - Acceptance of homosexuality may lead to increased bestiality and objectophilia due to "the influence that you can have sex with anything now"
1. I kind of feel like I should resent the argument that it leads to higher rates of STDs. I feel like this is more due to the fact men are generally more promiscuous and the lack of the pregnancy dynamic means gay men aren't all that caught up in using condoms. I dunno.
2. No accounts doesn't mean it didn't happen - definitely did and in fact one of our earliest civilisations had an awful lot of same-sex activity (Greeks).
3. Stupid argument really - the world is hella overpopulated and 5% of the population, or whatever it is now, isn't going to cause extinction.
4. That is not what accepting homosexuality leads to though - loving a man is different from loving objects and animals isn't it...? Saying 'heterosexuality promotes beastiality' wouldn't work and so it doesn't with homosexuality either.
There are several reasons for banning marriage/adoption, but not homosexuality itself. Considering it's been around for thousands of years (even the ancient Athenians/Spartans used to practice it) banning it entirely would be absurd.
1. I kind of feel like I should resent the argument that it leads to higher rates of STDs. I feel like this is more due to the fact men are generally more promiscuous and the lack of the pregnancy dynamic means gay men aren't all that caught up in using condoms. I dunno.
2. No accounts doesn't mean it didn't happen - definitely did and in fact one of our earliest civilisations had an awful lot of same-sex activity (Greeks).
3. Stupid argument really - the world is hella overpopulated and 5% of the population, or whatever it is now, isn't going to cause extinction.
4. That is not what accepting homosexuality leads to though - loving a man is different from loving objects and animals isn't it...? Saying 'heterosexuality promotes beastiality' wouldn't work and so it doesn't with homosexuality either.
Good for you for finding a way to argue against these views. I'd like to highlight again the fact that they aren't mine.