Other than religious, what reason is there to ban homosexuality?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by SmileyVibe
IDk. I'm not the one enforcing that law. I don't make the laws in countries that ban homosexuality.
You don't know because it isn't a reason. The reasons countries do put forward are religious ones.
Even in countries like Russia, where life for LGBTQIA people is hell and laws severely limit the rights of gays, religious arguments are used.
Mothers really do like grand children.So, I suspect, the average mother might be a tad sad.
I guess that is why so many homosexuals do marry and have kids.
I know these marriages do not always last, but lets face it how many marriages do nowadays anyway.
I guess that is why so many homosexuals do marry and have kids.
I know these marriages do not always last, but lets face it how many marriages do nowadays anyway.
Original post by ivybridge
You don't know because it isn't a reason. The reasons countries do put forward are religious ones.
Even in countries like Russia, where life for LGBTQIA people is hell and laws severely limit the rights of gays, religious arguments are used.
Even in countries like Russia, where life for LGBTQIA people is hell and laws severely limit the rights of gays, religious arguments are used.
And it isn't a reason because...?
1. Reason:
a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
You don't have to be religious to "ban" homosexuality. I know a couple atheists who think homosexuality is illogical. Why can't religious arguments be reasons? It may not be the greatest and amazing explanation but a reason is a still a reason. Maybe its a bad reason but its still a reason.
Original post by FredOrJohn
Mothers really do like grand children.So, I suspect, the average mother might be a tad sad.
I guess that is why so many homosexuals do marry and have kids.
I know these marriages do not always last, but lets face it how many marriages do nowadays anyway.
I guess that is why so many homosexuals do marry and have kids.
I know these marriages do not always last, but lets face it how many marriages do nowadays anyway.
But how will a ban solve this? It's something within us, it's not just going to go away because Cameron passes a law, or Putin, or whoever it is. It will always be there and all that will happen is people well be oppressed and sooner or later, they'll rise up again and things will revert back to the way they are now. It's so illogical.
Original post by SmileyVibe
And it isn't a reason because...?
1. Reason:
a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
You don't have to be religious to "ban" homosexuality. I know a couple atheists who think homosexuality is illogical. Why can't religious arguments be reasons? It may not be the greatest and amazing explanation but a reason is a still a reason. Maybe its a bad reason but its still a reason.
1. Reason:
a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
You don't have to be religious to "ban" homosexuality. I know a couple atheists who think homosexuality is illogical. Why can't religious arguments be reasons? It may not be the greatest and amazing explanation but a reason is a still a reason. Maybe its a bad reason but its still a reason.
It's not a reason because you're just describing why somebody might not like homosexuality, not why it could or should be banned.
Yeah and your atheist pals don't understand the illogicality of their own thoughts on the matter.
Religious arguments can and are used. They just don't hold. If you wanted to use the Bible as a dictation of Law - nobody would be able to do anything yet they'd all be able to do everything! Holy texts are complete contradictions and based on ill-evidenced belief, unlike homosexuality which is based in fact.
Original post by FredOrJohn
Mothers really do like grand children.So, I suspect, the average mother might be a tad sad.
I guess that is why so many homosexuals do marry and have kids.
I know these marriages do not always last, but lets face it how many marriages do nowadays anyway.
I guess that is why so many homosexuals do marry and have kids.
I know these marriages do not always last, but lets face it how many marriages do nowadays anyway.
This is nothing to do with "banning" - just why its not always a celebration.
When a woman gets told for the first time by the NHS that "They cannot have children" this can be devastating.
When a mother (and also some dads) gets told that they cannot have grand children due to homosexuality or any reason this will also be very upsetting for many many mothers - especially since so many mothers have just one child.
Its not the law, its sadness.
Original post by ivybridge
It's not a reason because you're just describing why somebody might not like homosexuality, not why it could or should be banned.
Yeah and your atheist pals don't understand the illogicality of their own thoughts on the matter.
Religious arguments can and are used. They just don't hold. If you wanted to use the Bible as a dictation of Law - nobody would be able to do anything yet they'd all be able to do everything! Holy texts are complete contradictions and based on ill-evidenced belief, unlike homosexuality which is based in fact.
It's not a reason because you're just describing why somebody might not like homosexuality, not why it could or should be banned.
Yeah and your atheist pals don't understand the illogicality of their own thoughts on the matter.
Religious arguments can and are used. They just don't hold. If you wanted to use the Bible as a dictation of Law - nobody would be able to do anything yet they'd all be able to do everything! Holy texts are complete contradictions and based on ill-evidenced belief, unlike homosexuality which is based in fact.
I do not have reasons why it should to be banned, that's true. I don't support banning homosexuality myself but those are some reasons why some countries ban homosexuality. Those reasons are not very good reasons but those are reasons some countries ban it. Religious or not. Do they make sense or "hold"? No. But are they used? Yes. I included the atheists part to mean that it is not always the religious who dislike homosexuality or against it. Based on fact? What do you mean by that?
I forgot to add a popular reason as well. Some countries deem homosexuality as unnatural and immoral. They do not want it normalize in their country or have any of known by children. It is considered a taboo, and an immoral one. Do I support that? No.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by SmileyVibe
I do not have reasons why it should to be banned, that's true. I don't support banning homosexuality myself but those are some reasons why some countries ban homosexuality. Those reasons are not very good reasons but those are reasons some countries ban it. Religious or not. Do they make sense or "hold"? No. But are they used? Yes. I included the atheists part to mean that it is not always the religious who dislike homosexuality or against it. Based on fact? What do you mean by that?
I said that religious arguments are used so I have no idea what you're arguing about?
Original post by ivybridge
I said that religious arguments are used so I have no idea what you're arguing about?
Can you please explain what you mean by homosexuality is fact? I didn't understood that one. You said that they don't hold and I agreed with you.
They don't have to "hold" to be reasons. I forgot you added that part.
Original post by SmileyVibe
Can you please explain what you mean by homosexuality is fact? I didn't understood that one. You said that they don't hold and I agreed with you.
They don't have to "hold" to be reasons. Weren't you one going on about the Bible or something?
They don't have to "hold" to be reasons. Weren't you one going on about the Bible or something?
I am saying that they do not hold and therefore aren't reasons to ban homosexuality, that's all.
What I meant was homosexuality is real - it's an indisputable fact of life. God is not.
Original post by FredOrJohn
This is nothing to do with "banning" - just why its not always a celebration.
When a woman gets told for the first time by the NHS that "They cannot have children" this can be devastating.
When a mother (and also some dads) gets told that they cannot have grand children due to homosexuality or any reason this will also be very upsetting for many many mothers - especially since so many mothers have just one child.
Its not the law, its sadness.
When a woman gets told for the first time by the NHS that "They cannot have children" this can be devastating.
When a mother (and also some dads) gets told that they cannot have grand children due to homosexuality or any reason this will also be very upsetting for many many mothers - especially since so many mothers have just one child.
Its not the law, its sadness.
Some people's parents like mine were quite old when they had their kids, so they might not likely be around to see their grandchildren.
e.g. My dad was 42 when I was born. If I had a child a 42, he would be 84, which he might not even make, and if he does he most likely won't be around for long, so for some people, worries of grandchildren don't come into it.
There's more to life than grandchildren, you can dote on your great-nieces and great-nephews if you build a good connection with your nieces and nephews, so it's not the end of the world
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by SmileyVibe
I forgot to add a popular reason as well. Some countries deem homosexuality as unnatural and immoral. They do not want it normalize in their country or have any of known by children. It is considered a taboo, and an immoral one. Do I support that? No.
I forgot to add a popular reason as well. Some countries deem homosexuality as unnatural and immoral. They do not want it normalize in their country or have any of known by children. It is considered a taboo, and an immoral one. Do I support that? No.
And my point would be, again, that it is not a strong enough reason to validate a ban.
Original post by ivybridge
And my point would be, again, that it is not a strong enough reason to validate a ban.
Thanks for explaining what you mean by fact. I thought of something else. Its not a strong enough reason to validate but if you lived in a country where you were raised that homosexuality is the most immoral taboo, and even thought homosexuals ate poo, wouldn't you go along with the herd and want it banned too?
In those countries like Russia and African countries, they hold fast to their traditions and religious beliefs. Russia associates homosexuality with negatives and does not intend to have it "spread" so they ban it as a form to keep the gays under their control. As long as its banned, no gay will try to be brave or dumb enough to break the law in fear of death or imprisonment. In African countries, homosexuality is so repulsive its "needs" a ban on it.
Bans are made to keep those beneath the government in check or to scare those who want to do harm in line or break mores. In this scenario, gays/homosexuality. Hopefully you get what I'm trying to say.
Let's use incest relationships. Its banned because its seen as immoral taboo. Now that's not a reason to validate a ban. I don't support incest or bans on homosexuality but homosexuality is not accepted while in some countries incest is just cool and everyone does it.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by SmileyVibe
Let's use incest relationships. Its banned because its seen as immoral taboo. Now that's not a reason to validate a ban.
Let's use incest relationships. Its banned because its seen as immoral taboo. Now that's not a reason to validate a ban.
No, there are lots of additional factors that make incest a banned issue. Don't compare it with being gay, please. They are not the same.
Original post by SmileyVibe
Thanks for explaining what you mean by fact. I thought of something else. Its not a strong enough reason to validate but if you lived in a country where you were raised that homosexuality is the most immoral taboo, and even thought homosexuals ate poo, wouldn't you go along with the herd and want it banned too?
In those countries like Russia and African countries, they hold fast to their traditions and religious beliefs. Russia associates homosexuality with negatives and does not intend to have it "spread" so they ban it as a form to keep the gays under their control. As long as its banned, no gay will try to be brave or dumb enough to break the law in fear of death or imprisonment. In African countries, homosexuality is so repulsive its "needs" a ban on it.
Bans are made to keep those beneath the government in check or to scare those who want to do harm in line or break mores. In this scenario, gays/homosexuality. Hopefully you get what I'm trying to say.
Let's use incest relationships. Its banned because its seen as immoral taboo. Now that's not a reason to validate a ban. I don't support incest or bans on homosexuality but homosexuality is not accepted while in some countries incest is just cool and everyone does it.
In those countries like Russia and African countries, they hold fast to their traditions and religious beliefs. Russia associates homosexuality with negatives and does not intend to have it "spread" so they ban it as a form to keep the gays under their control. As long as its banned, no gay will try to be brave or dumb enough to break the law in fear of death or imprisonment. In African countries, homosexuality is so repulsive its "needs" a ban on it.
Bans are made to keep those beneath the government in check or to scare those who want to do harm in line or break mores. In this scenario, gays/homosexuality. Hopefully you get what I'm trying to say.
Let's use incest relationships. Its banned because its seen as immoral taboo. Now that's not a reason to validate a ban. I don't support incest or bans on homosexuality but homosexuality is not accepted while in some countries incest is just cool and everyone does it.
The UK at one point was like Russia and African communities etc in that they thought homosexuals were disgusting, and it took gays to be 'brave' enough to speak out and break laws to eventually legalise it. Yes it costed lives but it worked in the long run.
I do agree with you on this herd culture though, but cultures do change over time, and past change in the UK is proof of this
Original post by Grand High Witch
Practically impossible. Gay people have never made up more than 5-10% of any given population as far as I am aware. Also, in the current age, is reducing the human population actually a bad thing?
See infertile straight couples. And yes, you are right - there are many methods of gay people having children at the present time.
The concept of illegitimate children is a total anachronism these days.
Ok, but do you take an issue with infertile straight couples who can't produce kids, biologically?
See infertile straight couples. And yes, you are right - there are many methods of gay people having children at the present time.
The concept of illegitimate children is a total anachronism these days.
Ok, but do you take an issue with infertile straight couples who can't produce kids, biologically?
OK! My wifi did something stupid and I couldn't get in here but you're not off the hook. Let me remember everything I wrote before....
Right. So the human population thing. People who can have kids but who so choose not to aren't not having kids for the sake of the Earth not being "too full." They're doing it for the sake of their hands not being too full and keeping their wallets full, the gov't included. So I don't buy the whole, "it's beneficial to not have kids because of the population being too high." Aside from religion, which in my religion, states even in the 10 Commandments (which is like one of the 1st things you'd see cracking the Bible open) to be "fruitful and multiply" because our children are too God's children. But aside from that, my opinion and many others' is that those who CAN have kids but who choose NOT to are simply being selfish, and like China's 1-Child rule, that was just murderous and insane and I think they've since ended that? This all of course is IRRELEVANT to those who CANNOT have kids, because they won't be opting to NOT have kids as they have no choice and they also are not adding to earth's "too high" population, just in case you try to that as a rebuttal. Ah wait what do I see here, how predictable, you already have
So anyway, in conclusion and in short, not having kids WHEN YOU CAN is wrong for the simple factor of selfishness, also referencing what certain countries have done to try to stop reproduction. This obviously does not include those who can't even produce if they wanted to. 
Original post by ivybridge
What happened bro? I don't have to agree with everything but don't worry I won't be holding any picket signs against LGBT anytime soon
Original post by ivybridge
No, there are lots of additional factors that make incest a banned issue. Don't compare it with being gay, please. They are not the same.
If additional factors include children being born with birth defects, incest couples can always adopt. Forgive me if I'm being offensive. What I'm trying to get across is in Russia + African countries, homosexuality is against their customs and their "way of life". In the UK, incest couples is not part of "way of life" and scold upon. If you took a gay couple in a African country, they would be scold upon and even thrown in jail. In some African countries and tribes, marrying your sister or brother is normal while two men marrying each other is not, and repulsive.
It doesn't make sense to imprison gay people in Russia since its not harming anyone but it goes against the traditions and customs of a society that is traditional.
Original post by ivybridge
PRSOM!
Just pointing out, I said there is the "idea" that the population would die out. I never said it's my idea, nor did I say I agree with such an idea. I am acknowledging the reality which is that people out here think like this as a preemptive way to address my opponent's perspective.
Original post by 0to100
What happened bro? I don't have to agree with everything but don't worry I won't be holding any picket signs against LGBT anytime soon
What happened bro? I don't have to agree with everything but don't worry I won't be holding any picket signs against LGBT anytime soon
You just seem very inconsistent, that's all. No you don't have to agree with anything, nor disagree.
I just thought you seemed much better than the comments you made.
Original post by SmileyVibe
If additional factors include children being born with birth defects, incest couples can always adopt. Forgive me if I'm being offensive. What I'm trying to get across is in Russia + African countries, homosexuality is against their customs and their "way of life". In the UK, incest couples is not part of "way of life" and scold upon. If you took a gay couple in a African country, they would be scold upon and even thrown in jail. In some African countries and tribes, marrying your sister or brother is normal while two men marrying each other is not, and repulsive.
It doesn't make sense to imprison gay people in Russia since its not harming anyone but it goes against the traditions and customs of a society that is traditional.
It doesn't make sense to imprison gay people in Russia since its not harming anyone but it goes against the traditions and customs of a society that is traditional.
It includes the child dimension, of course. However, the other issues do not link the dots.
I don't need the point to be made though - I get it. My argument all along has been that they simply aren't strong enough to validate a ban. Not that they don't exist. Leave it now, please - post generally if you want but stop directing the comments at me because this debate has been done to death now.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
