LGBT+ Sex and Relationship Education

How do you know incest is not a form of sexuality? I reject the soundness of your premise that incest has nothing to do with sexuality, as it is a form of sexuality itself. Just as someone may only be attracted to those of the same sex, some people may only be attracted to people related to them.

How do you know incest is not a form of sexuality? I reject the soundness of your premise that incest has nothing to do with sexuality, as it is a form of sexuality itself. Just as someone may only be attracted to those of the same sex, some people may only be attracted to people related to them.

The United Kingdom over the years has been invaded by: Normans, Romans, Vikings, Celts, and many more; each left their mark on our traditions. So Roman traditions are also our traditions.

You realise that's not an argument against homosexuality, right? It's just a tangent to the topic at hand. We can spin it whichever way you want though, really. I specified that the relationship shouldn't harm anyone if it were to be acceptable, so the risk put on any offspring from an incestual couple would fall under that, no?

But if it's not causing harm to anyone, it's not technically bad. Whilst I don't personally support it, there's not an inherent moral argument against it. It's also not a sexuality, and therefore not directly comparable.

More to the point, this is an argument specifically about LGBT+ relationships, which you have yet to put a new argument against.

Tell me, when was it the case that Roman culture caused Britain to be obsessed with homosexual sex?

117 to 138 Roman Emperor Hadrian ruled Britain. Best known for building Hadrian's Wall, which marked the northern limit of Roman Britain, Hadrian was the first Roman Emperor to make it clear that he was homosexual. Hadrian uniquely made Antinous, a beautiful young Bithynian youth, his "official consort"; Antinous accompanied him throughout the Empire. Hadrian was so distraught by Antinous's death in the Nile in 130 CE that he named a city in Egypt, Antinopolis, after him and deified him.

Planes and cooking are constructive things that are meant to make the human race more productive, and are signs of the supremacy of the human race over other animals. Sex between those of the same sex, on the other hand, does not enhance our productivity, nor is it in any way constructive.

This is about the education of LGBT relationships. What I am arguing is that there is no need to educate children about these relationships that in many cases result in no reproduction. We should not promoting these relationships to young children, lest more of them opt for not reproducing when they grow up, which by extension leads to a net decrease in our population. This is terrible for our economy.

This is about the education of LGBT relationships. What I am arguing is that there is no need to educate children about these relationships that in many cases result in no reproduction. We should not promoting these relationships to young children, lest more of them opt for not reproducing when they grow up, which by extension leads to a net decrease in our population. This is terrible for our economy.

Just like we teach hetro risks such as STIs and relationship abuse, these are still required for LGBT. We definitely aren't having a decreased population, what nonsense, our population is so high that the burden on health services can't cope. That's like saying those who are infertile or don't want children are terrible for the economy - rubbish - if anything, they are a help to reduce this pressure on our services.

OK, I'll bite and use your style of argument. Logically emotions are pointless, we have no use for them. However, if you look deeper; people with a higher morale (happier people) are generally more productive; this gives a reason for happiness to exist on a logical basis. Being LGBT is what some people need to be happy, which makes them more productive. So by that logic, if you stop discriminating against them and allow them all the knowledge they need to be happy; they will contribute more to society.

It's true that the birth rate in England decreased by 0.5% between 2013 and 2014.

Actually, a number of LGBT couples still raise children, so the relationship itself will can still contribute in that manner. The majority of people won't purely have sex for reproduction, and some may not had kids at all; unless you're also advocating a system whereby we only educate those that we somehow know will have children, your argument is essentially moot. By extension, LGBT+ education has no more bearing on the economy than anyone else without children, and if anything, it's a good thing, as they're more likely to support a family if they're happy and stable in their relationship.

If you don't educate people, it will have absolutely no bearing on how many grow up LGBT+. All that you'll do is ensure that more of them grow up unhappy, and feeling as if there is something wrong with them.

The thing is, I am not discriminating against them, but there is absolutely no need to be wasting money on teaching LGBT relationships to children. If they were born to be LGBT, then they would be that to maximise their happiness, would they not? By promoting LGBT relationships disguised as education, children may become LGBT when they are actually heterosexual, which results in a net decrease in happiness in society. There is absolutely no need to cause more people to be unhappy by having LGBT education.

You can't change your sexual orientation, so 'promoting LGBT relationships' (by which you mean simply telling children they exist and how they work) wouldn't affect those who are heterosexual.

I'm tempted to draw comparisons between your 'promoting LGBT relationships' and Russia's "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships", but I think I'll leave that one for now.

If true, that's not something which worries me, considering the pressures we face already. As mentioned above, LGBT people can still be parents. Also they are potentially more likely to adopt children who are in need of a loving home and who are actually wanted.

Talking about this bill: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3777665?

The thing is, I am not discriminating against them, but there is absolutely no need to be wasting money on teaching LGBT relationships to children. If they were born to be LGBT, then they would be that to maximise their happiness, would they not? By promoting LGBT relationships disguised as education, children may become LGBT when they are actually heterosexual, which results in a net decrease in happiness in society. There is absolutely no need to cause more people to be unhappy by having LGBT education.

It's true that the birth rate in England decreased by 0.5% between 2013 and 2014.

The thing is, I am not discriminating against them, but there is absolutely no need to be wasting money on teaching LGBT relationships to children. If they were born to be LGBT, then they would be that to maximise their happiness, would they not? By promoting LGBT relationships disguised as education, children may become LGBT when they are actually heterosexual, which results in a net decrease in happiness in society. There is absolutely no need to cause more people to be unhappy by having LGBT education.

Today's media already promotes LGBTism enough. There is no need to waste additional money to reassure LGBT people to make them feel happy, as if they are special needs individuals.

There's literally no evidence to suggest that would happen.

The thing is, I am not discriminating against them, but there is absolutely no need to be wasting money on teaching LGBT relationships to children. If they were born to be LGBT, then they would be that to maximise their happiness, would they not? By promoting LGBT relationships disguised as education, children may become LGBT when they are actually heterosexual, which results in a net decrease in happiness in society. There is absolutely no need to cause more people to be unhappy by having LGBT education.