Other than religious, what reason is there to ban homosexuality?

Original post by loveleest

Some straight couples may choose to adopt than have kids of their own or they might just not want any kids at all?

true true

Reply 41

picklescamp

16

Original post by donutellme

It's usually not a fear, more... disgust?

Sounds like you're trying to articulate what it's like to be a homophobe. Are you confessing to being one?

Reply 42

OP

Original post by GlassyMarbles

- Increased chance of STDs

That is not inherent to homosexuality but the practice of anal sex, which is also practised by straight couples.

- "Unnatural"; little to no accounts of it pre-20th century

Most things in daily life are "unnatural", such as computers, yet they are not banned.

Also, there are numerous historical accounts of homosexuality pre-20th century and extending as far back as Ancient Greece.

- Possible eventual proliferation may lead to human extinction [I know, I know, this is so stupid]

Practically impossible.

- Acceptance of homosexuality may lead to increased bestiality and objectophilia due to "the influence that you can have sex with anything now"

Slippery slope argument. I would also say that straight couples engaging in kinky sex/activities is more akin to things like beastiality and objectophilia than a gay couple engaged in a normal, loving relationship.

Reply 43

The person

2

Original post by Grand High Witch

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 guess gonorrhoea and various other sexually transmitted diseases. Gonorrhoea is basically becoming resistant now. (Not a homophobe btw)

Reply 44

Original post by picklescamp

Sounds like you're trying to articulate what it's like to be a homophobe. Are you confessing to being one?

No?

Reply 45

picklescamp

16

Original post by donutellme

No?

Ok, so you don't think there's a legitimate reason to bad homosexuality?

Reply 46

Underscore__

Original post by donutellme

That is what it will lead to though. Why? Because the main reason for homosexual acceptance (two consenting parties, which is a fair enough reason I guess) can be applied to all of these. Incest, bestiality, robots, etc. Where to draw the limit?

How can consent be applied to beastiality? As far as I'm aware no one can communicate with animals well enough to know if they're consenting and that's not even getting on to the point that an animal likely wouldn't have the capacity to give consent. There's no real law against have sex with a robot, sex toys are arguably robots.

The difference that you're ignoring is that with incest there is usually a grooming element and in most cases incest usually involves minors. If you could have a relationship between two relatives, where there was no grooming or differing positions of power, then perhaps that shouldn't be a crime but most incestuous relationships aren't like that hence why it's illegal

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 47

Original post by picklescamp

Ok, so you don't think there's a legitimate reason to bad homosexuality?

I'm fine with gay people. I don't treat them any differently to how I treat anyone else. I don't impose anything on them. I don't bring up their sexuality when dealing with them. But if we legalise homosexual unions, then we will be forced to legalise many others. I draw the line at heterosexuality.

Reply 48

OP

Original post by The person

I guess gonorrhoea and various other sexually transmitted diseases. Gonorrhoea is basically becoming resistant now. (Not a homophobe btw)

Which is not exclusive to homosexuality.

Reply 49

Original post by Underscore__

How can consent be applied to beastiality? As far as I'm aware no one can communicate with animals well enough to know if they're consenting and that's not even getting on to the point that an animal likely wouldn't have the capacity to give consent. There's no real law against have sex with a robot, sex toys are arguably robots.

The difference that you're ignoring is that with incest there is usually a grooming element and in most cases incest usually involves minors. If you could have a relationship between two relatives, where there was no grooming or differing positions of power, then perhaps that shouldn't be a crime but most incestuous relationships aren't like that hence why it's illegal

I'm sure that soon someone will come up with a way to rationalise beastiality as well. And people will want their partnerships legalised, and so the cycle begins again.

Do you have statistics on that? Ignoring that, what about fully consensual ones? You'd be supporting on a brother and sister marrying right?

Reply 50

OP

Original post by donutellme

I'm sure that soon someone will come up with a way to rationalise beastiality as well. And people will want their partnerships legalised, and so the cycle begins again.

That's a slippery slope fallacy. How does it follow that legalising loving, gay relationships will ultimately lead to the legalisation of relationships with animals?

Reply 51

SMT22x

3

No reason at all! Live and let live :smile:

<3

Reply 52

Original post by Grand High Witch

That's a slippery slope fallacy. How does it follow that legalising loving, gay relationships will ultimately lead to the legalisation of relationships with animals?

Because of the arguments used to justify gay relationships. Understand, i have nothing against gay people. But it will only lead to more and more openness.

Reply 53

londonundergrad

4

Original post by donutellme

Sounds like you're making excuses. When someone who's a ladies man has sex with a girl, how is that not the same? According to you, there's a power imbalance. What about mum and son? Or brother and sister?

And you both keep saying it's COMPLETELY different... er, no its not? It's closer to heterosexuality than homosexuality is.

Face it. You don't have any good reason to be against incest save for your disgust. This is the same reason people are against homosexuality.

Sounds like you're hellbent on legalising incest. Having sex with a 'player' and having sex with your father are two very different things... I'm baffled that I had to spell it out to you and you still didn't get it.

In simple terms: heterosexuality/homosexuality/bisexuality = sexual orientations
Incest = having sex with a family member

If you don't understand something so simple, I'm concerned for your family.

Reply 54

Original post by londonundergrad

Sounds like you're hellbent on legalising incest. Having sex with a 'player' and having sex with your father are two very different things... I'm baffled that I had to spell it out to you and you still didn't get it.

In simple terms: heterosexuality/homosexuality/bisexuality = sexual orientations
Incest = having sex with a family member

If you don't understand something so simple, I'm concerned for your family.

You haven't gotten a single thing I've tried to say.

Yeah, but how is it rape if you agree to sex with your dad but not if you agree to it with someone else?

I'm saying that if you are okay with legalising homosexual marriages, then you should be okay with incest, because they both hinge on love and consent.

I don't support either for this very reason. If you support one but not the other out of disgust and inappropriateness, but don't get why people are against homosexuality, then you're a hypocrite. I'm baffled you don't understand this.

Reply 55

Underscore__

Original post by donutellme

I'm sure that soon someone will come up with a way to rationalise beastiality as well. And people will want their partnerships legalised, and so the cycle begins again.

An animal can't communicate consent with a human, nor can it have the capacity to consent therefore sexual relations will not be allowed. The whole slippery slope argument is such nonsense, you could very easily say that by allowing humans to legally be heterosexual it's a slippery slope.

Original post by donutellme

Do you have statistics on that? Ignoring that, what about fully consensual ones? You'd be supporting on a brother and sister marrying right?

No, I imagine it's quite difficult to get statistics on that and most people don't see themselves as being groomed while they're being groomed. Even in most sibling relationships there would likely be an element of power imbalance. I wouldn't care if a brother and sister got married so long as they don't have create children. That's where risk exists, there are no such risks associated with homosexuality.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 56

The person

2

Original post by Grand High Witch

Which is not exclusive to homosexuality.

Well obviously , nothing is exclusive to anything. However, if there was no homosexuality, we wouldn't be in a situation right now where gonorrhoea is becoming resistant to available medicines. Gonorrhoea would've remained relatively easy to treat.

Reply 57

username1723547

Original post by Grand High Witch

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.

This may be said in the thread somewhere, I haven't read through it all yet, but it's legal in more places than it's banned. Progress is slow but it's happening.

Reply 58

username1723547

Original post by londonundergrad

Sounds like you're hellbent on legalising incest. Having sex with a 'player' and having sex with your father are two very different things... I'm baffled that I had to spell it out to you and you still didn't get it.

In simple terms: heterosexuality/homosexuality/bisexuality = sexual orientations
Incest = having sex with a family member

If you don't understand something so simple, I'm concerned for your family.

Really, there's nothing wrong with incest apart from the stigma. Yes, there are genetic problems, but unless you have children it doesn't hurt anyone.

Reply 59

OP