The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

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

Scroll to see replies

Original post by 0to100
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.


And all my point was, was that it isn't a strong enough argument to validate anything. It's an absolutely laughable idea.
Original post by ivybridge
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.


What am I inconsistent about, and what has made you deem me "better?" I have barely spoken on this matter, much less with you. The only thing I can think of is the double standards thing with BlueMason. And yes I agree people need to be consistent because otherwise they are resorting to "repulsion" and hatred and it discredits the entire perspective. Or they haven't figured out what they think about LGBT and are just arbitrarily defending them. And all I said here was that the obvious issue with homosexuality is the inability to have kids....that is just a scientific fact. It's not ...homophobic or bad to point this out, and if I do, how am I all of a sudden a bad person or not as good as you "saw me" or whatever? Like wow. I'm a bad person because it's common sense that you can't have kids as a homosexual? :\ I did also point out they can find ways to have kids...so it's not ignorant...
Original post by 0to100
What am I inconsistent about, and what has made you deem me "better?" I have barely spoken on this matter, much less with you. The only thing I can think of is the double standards thing with BlueMason. And yes I agree people need to be consistent because otherwise they are resorting to "repulsion" and hatred and it discredits the entire perspective. Or they haven't figured out what they think about LGBT and are just arbitrarily defending them. And all I said here was that the obvious issue with homosexuality is the inability to have kids....that is just a scientific fact. It's not ...homophobic or bad to point this out, and if I do, how am I all of a sudden a bad person or not as good as you "saw me" or whatever? Like wow. I'm a bad person because it's common sense that you can't have kids as a homosexual? :\ I did also point out they can find ways to have kids...so it's not ignorant...


You have misunderstood me.

The argument that kids cannot be born to homosexual couples through the conventional methods is not inaccurate. However, it is also not even remotely plausible to use as an argument about bans.
Original post by ivybridge
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.


Aww, it was fun while it lasted... :frown:
Oh well. It was nice debating with you on this topic.
Then fair enough
Original post by ivybridge
You have misunderstood me.

The argument that kids cannot be born to homosexual couples through the conventional methods is not inaccurate. However, it is also not even remotely plausible to use as an argument about bans.


I never said it was a reason to ban. I never even said the word ban lol I am just pointing out MY main issue with it, and that is the no having kids naturally thing. I supported this being my valid issue by stating how science AND religion BOTH confirm this inability to have kids while living homosexual. And it's not...yes you're right not inaccurate. But I never said ban. I now realise the thread is about banning lol but ok. We gotta discuss this later because I need to go but if you want pm me or something, I'm not done with this but I keep being bothered. :\
Original post by 0to100
I never said it was a reason to ban. I never even said the word ban lol I am just pointing out MY main issue with it, and that is the no having kids naturally thing. I supported this being my valid issue by stating how science AND religion BOTH confirm this inability to have kids while living homosexual. And it's not...yes you're right not inaccurate. But I never said ban. I now realise the thread is about banning lol but ok. We gotta discuss this later because I need to go but if you want pm me or something, I'm not done with this but I keep being bothered. :\


As you said by the end of this post - the thread is about a ban and reasons for it.

Why you have an issue with the natural conception dynamic, I won't ever be able to fully understand.

If you want to, go for it.
Original post by 0to100
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 :rolleyes: 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. :colonhash:

Overpopulation is a grave concern for the future of humanity. Those who choose not to have children are not being selfish on any objective level. "Be fruitful and multiply" comes from the word of men who, thousands of years ago, may have felt that (probably due to the circumstances at the time) more people were needed for agriculture, armies, missionaries, etc.

Also, what's wrong with not having kids because your "hands" are too full? Many couples work in jobs which mean they wouldn't have enough time to devote to children in any meaningful way. As for "wallets", do you really think it's helpful for couples to have children when they cannot afford to?

My view is that any God who proclaims "be fruitful and multiply" regardless of the current circumstances of a civilisation is, frankly, negligent.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by donutellme
Then fair enough


I feel sorry for the gay people on this forum that constantly have their sexuality questioned not gunna lie.

I may not approve personally of homosexual acts but they really need a break, jeez
Same, but in this matter I'm just annoyed how people are being hypocritical.
Original post by donutellme
Same, but in this matter I'm just annoyed how people are being hypocritical.


You mean how people think homosexual acts are acceptable but not incest?
Original post by donutellme
Same, but in this matter I'm just annoyed how people are being hypocritical.


Who is being hypocritical? I'm just curious.
Original post by ivybridge
Who is being hypocritical? I'm just curious.


More general in how homosexuality should be acceptable and incest should not. But yes, in essence.

All those who say incest is disgusting while ignoring the same reasoning as that which justifies homosexuality.
Original post by donutellme
More general in how homosexuality should be acceptable and incest should not. But yes, in essence.

All those who say incest is disgusting while ignoring the same reasoning as that which justifies homosexuality.


Man... I gave you an in-depth answer to how incest and being gay are not the same. You didn't even reply. Your argument is rubbish, come on.
Original post by ivybridge
Man... I gave you an in-depth answer to how incest and being gay are not the same. You didn't even reply. Your argument is rubbish, come on.


Ah damn I didn't see it. I'll read it then respond later when I have time. Sleep time for now though.
Original post by donutellme
More general in how homosexuality should be acceptable and incest should not. But yes, in essence.

All those who say incest is disgusting while ignoring the same reasoning as that which justifies homosexuality.


Umm, well I guess you could argue it is kind of different from an evolutionary perspective, incest would cause inbreeding which would not only cause any offspring to have genetic abnormalities, it would also decrease the genetic diversity of a population thus reducing their fitness which would work against them.

Homosexuality does not produce any offspring naturally thus could be considered as evolutionary 'irrelevant' or as a genetic dead-end assuming the homosexual relationship is exclusive between two people of the same gender

There is a reason why humans are wired to be attracted to those whose pheromones are different from our own and our families
Same with homosexuality.

Anyway, I'm tired. Bye bye
Original post by donutellme
Same with homosexuality.

Anyway, I'm tired. Bye bye


What is the same with homosexuality? Homosexuals can't reproduce naturally unless they have intercourse with a member of the opposite sex
Original post by donutellme
Same, but in this matter I'm just annoyed how people are being hypocritical.


Yet you haven't addressed the point that the same reasons (consensual, just about two people loving each other) are used to justify and continue the acceptance of heterosexual relationships. Are we hypocrites for justifying and continuing heterosexual relationships for those reasons but not incestuous relationships and beastiality?
Original post by Kyle1198
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


You sound pretty callous about you dad, your mum doesn't even get a mention.

If mum was 42 at birth. but average age is.29 she would be 71 , that seems almost like late middle age nowadays and 84 is early old age..

You say "There is more to life than grandchildren" - that phrase sounds like something you'd say to someone who is crying.

Its not all beer and skittles. It is a family crisis of sorts. Its not a legal thing its a sad thing. Its not really Happy days are here again, its something that has to be accepted and moved on from

We know why many homosexual men marry, it is because children are important to many people.
And lets face it, nowadays many marriages don't last, so the effort is probably worth it.
Friendship is the most important thing in long term marriages - which is not relevant to sexuality, so in a sense, a gay man can easily marry without any problems.
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you