This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
How can people think homosexuality is a choice?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by dunknofamstill
Protestant bible is not the true word of god man changed it ( evil) only true is catholic and yes it says it is a sin we should kill the homosexuals levitcus 20 ( if they engage in homosexual activity)
So why are there so many fat Catholics? If Catholicism really cared for their "vices" perhaps they'd jump on the anti-fatty brigade.
Original post by Chaofan88
There are more openly gay people in the USA than in the middle east as homosexuality is much more accepted in even the more conseravtive areas of the USA than the middle east. It might be partially environmental, but certainly not in the way that you can 'encourage' or 'deter' homosexuality, otherwise there'd t=be essentially no gay people in Uganda where the (utterly disgusting) penalty for homosexuality is death.
Indeed. It is worse than apartheid. The UN and sporting authorities like FIFA were all too happy to censure South Africa for their apartheid regime but nothing is happening to Uganda from my understanding. Then again, I lost faith in humanity with the lack of action with Rwanda's genocide when it occured.
Original post by DYKWIA
The bible was written in a different time in a different culture, you can't just take quotes out of the bible like that. Interpret the meaning behind passages, don't just use particular quotes from the bible as evidence of Christianity accepting this, but not that.
I imagine that can be said for a lot of things mentioned in the Bible, such as the predation of animals for meat, drugs and other situations. The Bible accepts slavery and I have not heard of Christian endorsed criticisms of the contemporary slave trade either. People may cite love thy neighbour but I've seen plenty of Christians purchasing consumer goods made by child/slave labour, whether it's cocoa products or tobacco.
Original post by Miryo
But do you not find woman attractive at all? Like not even a bit?
It sounds like im being ridiculously ignorant but I am just curious to see what its like as I don't know any gay people that are too open about it.
It sounds like im being ridiculously ignorant but I am just curious to see what its like as I don't know any gay people that are too open about it.
The user you quoted is a lesbian. I think you got her gender wrong.
I'm gay (and male). You can find anyone attractive, I'll walk down the street and note the attractiveness of male and females but I'm only sexually attractive to males.
Original post by Kiss
And you're wrong to bash someone for their religion when they are actually trying to make an effort to encorporate something their religion forbids into their system of beliefs 
Surely you've got better things to do than whine on about theists all day.......
Surely you've got better things to do than whine on about theists all day.......Incorporate*
Well that further proves my point. You have to be an irrational moron to believe in something and then attempt to contradict your system of beliefs, even though there are already far too many internal contradictions. I don't care which religion they follow; I wasn't bashing them for following a certain religion, but rather for being theists. Taking around ten seconds to type a sentence isn't "whining" and certainly didn't take twenty four hours to do.
Original post by DYKWIA
How is wishing to burn people alive for their views any better than wanting people to commit suicide. You are incredibly hypocritical.
The words "tongue in cheek" mean nothing to you, do they? Then again, such monochromatic thinking is typical of you. While burning people alive is obviously not a good course of action to undertake, I do have some sympathy for an aggressive or even violent response to the suggestion that the best thing I can do with my life is end it.
That kind of devaluation of human life is what leads to things like death camps. In the west and in the present, people suggesting such things are seen as rampaging bloody loonies who aren't taken seriously by anyone besides other loonies. However, philosophically speaking (I know DYKWIA that you don't believe philosophy exists), it creates a them and us scenario - if they achieve critical numbers then my existence is redefined to have no value, by virtue of how democracy and consensus works. So yeah, in a theoretical sense, I am quite happy to kill them before they can kill me.
In practice, I have no intention of killing anybody. My entire original post pointed out better ways of dealing with the situation. Or did you miss that?
You see DYKWIA, while your position is somewhat more moderated, it shares the same premise: homosexuality is of less intrinsic value than heterosexuality, and by extension gay people are lesser and same-sex relationships are lesser. You fail to appreciate how fallacious, how dangerous, and how offensive this is. You are a primitive barbarian in that sense, because you haven't actually grasped the most fundamental underlying principle of western civilisation - the one which your nation was the first in history to try and codify in the 18th century - all people are equal, all of equal worth and all lives of equal intrinsic value.
Unfortunately the world is full of primitive barbarians who haven't grasped that - many haven't grasped even more fundamental ideas like nobody being above the law, personal taste not equating to morality, and not killing people unless there is no other choice. If people haven't grasped the idea that gay people don't deserve to die, one could well argue that they are something holding back the species and we might well be better of without them. If we don't wish to wish death upon them, then it's certainly clear that such people are uncivilised and so why should we protect more than their most basic human rights - ones that they wish to deprive others of like the right to life.
That's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be pretending that these people aren't something abhorrent, that they haven't become something that we hate. Honesty is the contrary, is recognising that they are vile creatures, that our visceral reaction is that they deserve what they wish upon others, and yet realising that there are better ways.
Original post by mmmpie
The words "tongue in cheek" mean nothing to you, do they? Then again, such monochromatic thinking is typical of you. While burning people alive is obviously not a good course of action to undertake, I do have some sympathy for an aggressive or even violent response to the suggestion that the best thing I can do with my life is end it.
That kind of devaluation of human life is what leads to things like death camps. In the west and in the present, people suggesting such things are seen as rampaging bloody loonies who aren't taken seriously by anyone besides other loonies. However, philosophically speaking (I know DYKWIA that you don't believe philosophy exists), it creates a them and us scenario - if they achieve critical numbers then my existence is redefined to have no value, by virtue of how democracy and consensus works. So yeah, in a theoretical sense, I am quite happy to kill them before they can kill me.
That kind of devaluation of human life is what leads to things like death camps. In the west and in the present, people suggesting such things are seen as rampaging bloody loonies who aren't taken seriously by anyone besides other loonies. However, philosophically speaking (I know DYKWIA that you don't believe philosophy exists), it creates a them and us scenario - if they achieve critical numbers then my existence is redefined to have no value, by virtue of how democracy and consensus works. So yeah, in a theoretical sense, I am quite happy to kill them before they can kill me.
It is a very small minority of people who wish death to come to gays, that doesn't mean that pro-society, anti-gay attitudes are bad. Any extremists are bad, but that doesn't mean the ideals are bad. I take it that you want to combat global warming? Does that mean you'd support any terrorists that committed acts in the name of combating global warming? You can't group us all together like that. I don't wish gays death, but I don't support your actions in trying to destroy society.
You see DYKWIA, while your position is somewhat more moderated, it shares the same premise: homosexuality is of less intrinsic value than heterosexuality, and by extension gay people are lesser and same-sex relationships are lesser. You fail to appreciate how fallacious, how dangerous, and how offensive this is. You are a primitive barbarian in that sense, because you haven't actually grasped the most fundamental underlying principle of western civilisation - the one which your nation was the first in history to try and codify in the 18th century - all people are equal, all of equal worth and all lives of equal intrinsic value.
Again, equality can hold only when the people involved are of no harm to others. Gays do harm others.
Unfortunately the world is full of primitive barbarians who haven't grasped that - many haven't grasped even more fundamental ideas like nobody being above the law, personal taste not equating to morality, and not killing people unless there is no other choice. If people haven't grasped the idea that gay people don't deserve to die, one could well argue that they are something holding back the species and we might well be better of without them. If we don't wish to wish death upon them, then it's certainly clear that such people are uncivilised and so why should we protect more than their most basic human rights - ones that they wish to deprive others of like the right to life.
No, society should be protected; the general population should be protected.
That's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be pretending that these people aren't something abhorrent, that they haven't become something that we hate. Honesty is the contrary, is recognising that they are vile creatures, that our visceral reaction is that they deserve what they wish upon others, and yet realising that there are better ways.
You call anyone who disagrees with you 'vile' or 'abhorrent'. I think it is vile that you want to silence those who disagree with you.
Original post by DYKWIA
Gays do harm others.
Erm, how?
Original post by ThePhilosoraptor
Fair do's - i'll have a shot.
I find the claim that
"i also believe that the only thing stopping a man from being a homosexual in practice is exercised morality because let's face it, whatever actually goes on in a straight man's mind (meaning what they fantasise about or have at least pondered) one will never know for sure "
problematic.
1 - it suggests that homosexuals/homosexuality is somehow immoral
2 - it seems to suggest that everyone is naturally homosexual and is conditioned out of it
I'm not sure either of those things are what you're trying to say - perhaps you could clarify the point for me? (please)
I find the claim that
"i also believe that the only thing stopping a man from being a homosexual in practice is exercised morality because let's face it, whatever actually goes on in a straight man's mind (meaning what they fantasise about or have at least pondered) one will never know for sure "
problematic.
1 - it suggests that homosexuals/homosexuality is somehow immoral
2 - it seems to suggest that everyone is naturally homosexual and is conditioned out of it
I'm not sure either of those things are what you're trying to say - perhaps you could clarify the point for me? (please)
asdfghjkkjhgfds I'm not using 'moral' as some sort of ideal to aspire to (neither will i use it as a pejorative) but as a (historically judeo-christian or whatever?!) standard of behaviour (and one of many at that!)!! basically, a lifestyle choice
Have you read anything on the sociology of gender? @ 2
there is a reason there's expressions like 'latent homosexuality' loll.. yeah most straight men and women who are strictly affiliated with religion/standards of behaviour have not bothered questioning them... I have questioned a lot of things... seen and experienced different people, different ways of life which I am okay with.. I come from the school of "anthropological philosophy"
1.) i believe people are inherently bisexual but to varying degrees. that means the percentage breakdown differs for all of us. I believe that sex doesnt have to = gender .. meaning we have an outer shell and an inner shell.. not everybody's is in synch/according to heteronormative prescription but i never let any of that stop me from just .. 'being'
2.) = how we are (consciously/latently) psycho-socio-culturally prescribed to behave, taking 1.) into consideration
3.) = realising there's a field called anthropology, psychology, sociology.. if individuals can in general, seek to understand themselves and live mindfully and responsibly that would be ideal and impact society in a nice way
4.) realising that 3.) is a way of life and that it's normal and expected to harbour confusion, resentment, and dislike towards alternative ways of life that seem to threaten us on a psychological, financial, institutional, ethnological etc level. Bonus points to those who are willing to grapple with this constructively to make their way to being the embodiment of 5.)
5.) 'understanding', 'pluralism', 'progressiveness', 'intercultural sensitivity' &/ an amalgamation of cultures would be an the ideal macro level outcome, and not at all foolish to predict especially @ globalisation.. (tho Hollywood and lack of exposure might get in the way..). Should we wear Hogwarts-Housey badges with space for multiple colors, % breakdown and symbolic codes (as opposed to having our physical features, passport, gender, bling bling, and religion be the automatic markers..)? Will that make for an adequate identifier and invite mutual respect and mutually beneficial relations? or will some nitwit like Voldemort or heck, even a Joe Common, come and **** things up, especially since it's not like it hasn't happened before.. Will this encourage people who are simply alike to group together? I mean.. that's what happened at my boarding school< and supposedly makes anthropological sense...
6.) rinse, repeat 1-5. It'll likely take some time.. I mean.. we'd need a massive overturn of the legal system, amongst other things (like a multidisciplinary, intercultural education curriculum.. I don't mean 'international school' style that sort of has one exist in a kind of socioeconomic & culturally homogenous bubble but caters oh so lovelily to the 'job market' #oh hai commodification of education!)
7.) realise that things aren't too shabby in 2012, unlike in various other time periods.. maybe we'll have cause to be idealistic after all..
8.) profit! and maybe I should start a religion.
9.) What are the foreseeable pros and cons of 1.) to 6.)? Hmmm...
--
Anyway,
In my own time I question the tropes and explanations offered thus far for homosexuality (you know, what I wrote about 'overbearing mother & absent father' and all the rest).. I question to what extent are they true/accurate.. and to what extent are they not?
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Jester94
Erm, how?
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF11B30.pdf
Family Research Council?
Summarise, in your own words, what the private relationship/sexual activities of a same sex couple have on the world, other than less and less people condemning it while having sex with their cousins.
I'm sorry, but those arguments are laughable. How does legalising same sex marriage have anything with an increased demand for legalised polygamy; the two have nothing to do with each other and you will find that in many places around the world there are just as many, if not more, heterosexual polygamists.
The push for same sex education in schools is not so that teachers can give explicit details on the finer points of gay or lesbian sex; it would the equivalent of sex ed lessons for heterosexual sex, not some kind of gay indoctrination which FCR seems to think it would be.
Fair enough, forcing Catholic church adoption services to allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt could be controversial, but denying these couples the right to adopt is no better than denying a couple the right to adopt because of their skin colour. It's also taking away the chance of tons of kids at getting a happy, stable, loving home.
Nondiscrimination laws are exactly that - they stop discrimination against ANY minority, including LGBT people but also ethnic and racial minorities or those with disabilities. It's not trying to force a gay agenda on you, merely trying to protect us in the workplace.
I love how the monogamy arguments always comes out (pardon the pun) or about the sanctity of marriage; I'm sorry, but just look at the numbers of heterosexual marriages that break down each year because of infidelity. We are not universally sex-crazed cheaters, some are unfaithful, but only the same as some heterosexual people are unfaithful.
Gay marriage, or being gay, has absolutely nothing to do with the length of the marriage; you could make the same passing statement about any kind of couple ('a mixed race couple reduces marriage length' etc) and it would be equally false. The length of the marriage depends on the people involved, NOT the kind of couple it is.
'Fewer children would be raised by a mother and father' and 'more children would grow up fatherless' - that's happening already thanks to how easy it is to get a divorce nowadays! Millions of children are raised in single parent families and do just fine, so how would a child coming from a family where there are TWO loving parents be any worse off.
Birth rates slowing down slightly is hardly a bad thing, but if a gay or lesbian wants children that are biologically one of the couple's it's entirely possible. It comes down to choice, not sexuality. Personally, I hope that when I come t having kids, my wife (because hopefully by then I will be allowed to marry properly) or I will be able to have our kids, but if not there are many other options.
It infuriates that is people like you, who oppose something that has nothing to do with you on the basis of weak arguments, are the reason why currently people like me cannot get married in the UK, most states in USA and the majority of places around the world. Do you really want to know what would happen if, shock horror, gay marriage was legalised for example. This:
I honestly do believe that it's nurture. The whole 'gays in the middle east' argument isn't valid, imo, because nobody can account for what tv shows they watch, how they think etc. There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with homosexual/transsexual people but I can't see what else it could be. I don't think it's a 'choice' though-if that makes any sense at all 
Original post by Ptolemy001
I honestly do believe that it's nurture. The whole 'gays in the middle east' argument isn't valid, imo, because nobody can account for what tv shows they watch, how they think etc. There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with homosexual/transsexual people but I can't see what else it could be. I don't think it's a 'choice' though-if that makes any sense at all
Well yeah, it's not like there are gay genes. The womb feminises babies to make gays.
Original post by Jester94
I'm sorry, but those arguments are laughable. How does legalising same sex marriage have anything with an increased demand for legalised polygamy; the two have nothing to do with each other and you will find that in many places around the world there are just as many, if not more, heterosexual polygamists.
The push for same sex education in schools is not so that teachers can give explicit details on the finer points of gay or lesbian sex; it would the equivalent of sex ed lessons for heterosexual sex, not some kind of gay indoctrination which FCR seems to think it would be.
Fair enough, forcing Catholic church adoption services to allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt could be controversial, but denying these couples the right to adopt is no better than denying a couple the right to adopt because of their skin colour. It's also taking away the chance of tons of kids at getting a happy, stable, loving home.
Nondiscrimination laws are exactly that - they stop discrimination against ANY minority, including LGBT people but also ethnic and racial minorities or those with disabilities. It's not trying to force a gay agenda on you, merely trying to protect us in the workplace.
I love how the monogamy arguments always comes out (pardon the pun) or about the sanctity of marriage; I'm sorry, but just look at the numbers of heterosexual marriages that break down each year because of infidelity. We are not universally sex-crazed cheaters, some are unfaithful, but only the same as some heterosexual people are unfaithful.
Gay marriage, or being gay, has absolutely nothing to do with the length of the marriage; you could make the same passing statement about any kind of couple ('a mixed race couple reduces marriage length' etc) and it would be equally false. The length of the marriage depends on the people involved, NOT the kind of couple it is.
'Fewer children would be raised by a mother and father' and 'more children would grow up fatherless' - that's happening already thanks to how easy it is to get a divorce nowadays! Millions of children are raised in single parent families and do just fine, so how would a child coming from a family where there are TWO loving parents be any worse off.
Birth rates slowing down slightly is hardly a bad thing, but if a gay or lesbian wants children that are biologically one of the couple's it's entirely possible. It comes down to choice, not sexuality. Personally, I hope that when I come t having kids, my wife (because hopefully by then I will be allowed to marry properly) or I will be able to have our kids, but if not there are many other options.
It infuriates that is people like you, who oppose something that has nothing to do with you on the basis of weak arguments, are the reason why currently people like me cannot get married in the UK, most states in USA and the majority of places around the world. Do you really want to know what would happen if, shock horror, gay marriage was legalised for example. This:
The push for same sex education in schools is not so that teachers can give explicit details on the finer points of gay or lesbian sex; it would the equivalent of sex ed lessons for heterosexual sex, not some kind of gay indoctrination which FCR seems to think it would be.
Fair enough, forcing Catholic church adoption services to allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt could be controversial, but denying these couples the right to adopt is no better than denying a couple the right to adopt because of their skin colour. It's also taking away the chance of tons of kids at getting a happy, stable, loving home.
Nondiscrimination laws are exactly that - they stop discrimination against ANY minority, including LGBT people but also ethnic and racial minorities or those with disabilities. It's not trying to force a gay agenda on you, merely trying to protect us in the workplace.
I love how the monogamy arguments always comes out (pardon the pun) or about the sanctity of marriage; I'm sorry, but just look at the numbers of heterosexual marriages that break down each year because of infidelity. We are not universally sex-crazed cheaters, some are unfaithful, but only the same as some heterosexual people are unfaithful.
Gay marriage, or being gay, has absolutely nothing to do with the length of the marriage; you could make the same passing statement about any kind of couple ('a mixed race couple reduces marriage length' etc) and it would be equally false. The length of the marriage depends on the people involved, NOT the kind of couple it is.
'Fewer children would be raised by a mother and father' and 'more children would grow up fatherless' - that's happening already thanks to how easy it is to get a divorce nowadays! Millions of children are raised in single parent families and do just fine, so how would a child coming from a family where there are TWO loving parents be any worse off.
Birth rates slowing down slightly is hardly a bad thing, but if a gay or lesbian wants children that are biologically one of the couple's it's entirely possible. It comes down to choice, not sexuality. Personally, I hope that when I come t having kids, my wife (because hopefully by then I will be allowed to marry properly) or I will be able to have our kids, but if not there are many other options.
It infuriates that is people like you, who oppose something that has nothing to do with you on the basis of weak arguments, are the reason why currently people like me cannot get married in the UK, most states in USA and the majority of places around the world. Do you really want to know what would happen if, shock horror, gay marriage was legalised for example. This:
then move to somewhere where it's legalized?! I don't understand what is so hard about that!?! This is not Victorian England!! People can immigrate easily and we have access to means of transport in 2012.. Just.. be smart and work things out.. I mean, I see no sense in like going to a forum and attacking other people's beliefs and then blaming them for a condition (no, I do not mean your lifestyle affiliation, but the whole getting married thing) that is easily solvable .. Read my post, man. Chill and best of luck for your plans
*not picking on you.. your post is like the last one on the page count thing that i happen to read
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by a_stitch_in_time
then move to somewhere where it's legalized?! I don't understand what is so hard about that!?! This is not Victorian England!! People can immigrate easily and we have access to means of transport in 2012.. Just.. be smart and work things out.. I mean, I see no sense in like going to a forum and attacking other people's beliefs and then blaming them for a condition (no, I do not mean your lifestyle affiliation, but the whole getting married thing) that is easily solvable .. Read my post, man. Chill and best of luck for your plans
*not picking on you.. your post is like the last one on the page count thing that i happen to read
*not picking on you.. your post is like the last one on the page count thing that i happen to read
The point is, why should I have to move, spending huge amounts of money in the process, to be able to do something that any heterosexual person can do anywhere. How is that at all fair or just? It's not about 'being smart', and I have made a particular effort in ALL of my posts not to attack anyone's beliefs (why sink to their level?), but I feel I am perfectly justified to blame organisations like NOM and FCR because they are part of the reason why I can't get married.
Original post by Jester94
Original post by Jester94
The point is, why should I have to move, spending huge amounts of money in the process, to be able to do something that any heterosexual person can do anywhere. How is that at all fair or just? It's not about 'being smart', and I have made a particular effort in ALL of my posts not to attack anyone's beliefs (why sink to their level?), but I feel I am perfectly justified to blame organisations like NOM and FCR because they are part of the reason why I can't get married.
I totally agree! why should 2 people in love have to move to get married. if 2 'coloured' heterosexual people were told to move to get married there would be outrage.
How does it effect your everyday life if 2 women want to get married? I'm guessing not at all, why are we raising the new generations of children to be closed minded and not move from our old fashion standards. I want future generations to know that it doesn't matter if i marry a man or a women its about the relationship between the 2 people.
We are the only species that displays homophobia....
I don't get why it matters. I'm bi and personally, that wasn't a choice. I'm cool with it and it's part of who I am and I wouldn't change for the world, but I never chose to be attracted to women. On the other hand, Cynthia Nixon recently said that being gay was a choice for her. People are different. The point is I don't want to be given equal rights and equal consideration because "poor me, I had no choice", I want them because it's the right thing to do. Because being in a relationship with someone of the same sex shouldn't make you a second class citizen, whether you chose that or not.
Original post by riotgrrl
I don't get why it matters. I'm bi and personally, that wasn't a choice. I'm cool with it and it's part of who I am and I wouldn't change for the world, but I never chose to be attracted to women. On the other hand, Cynthia Nixon recently said that being gay was a choice for her. People are different. The point is I don't want to be given equal rights and equal consideration because "poor me, I had no choice", I want them because it's the right thing to do. Because being in a relationship with someone of the same sex shouldn't make you a second class citizen, whether you chose that or not.
Sorry to be pedantic, but she then said that her gay relationship was a choice, not her sexuality.
Original post by Jester94
The point is, why should I have to move, spending huge amounts of money in the process, to be able to do something that any heterosexual person can do anywhere. How is that at all fair or just? It's not about 'being smart', and I have made a particular effort in ALL of my posts not to attack anyone's beliefs (why sink to their level?), but I feel I am perfectly justified to blame organisations like NOM and FCR because they are part of the reason why I can't get married.
Because I assume you want to get married very badly and asap.
This 2012 and not 3000 or whatever. Things take time to change. Why the preoccupation with being married? Is it for tax? Is it because you feel not being married makes you a second class citizen/not regarded all that well? I certainly don't regard you as such. But then again you are more concerned with those who do regard you that way.
Be logical about this. It's 2012.. your options are to take part in activism and hope for speedy change, spend some money to relocate, or reprogram your perception of how people might categorize you. 2012 has with it, just like any other lifetime, economic, sociological, political constraints.. Or do you have no interest in history (look up the history of diplomacy while you're at it and border territories) or any of those things but to get given 'your right'?! in which case, welcome to the dog eat dog paradigm. Otherwise, every country will be a welfare state. Now, a the present situation, everyone wants their rights. Others have had a head start... Others feel threatened by you, others come from less developed places and are grateful for the massive difference that relocation brings, others abuse the system, etcetc. Or simply put, the world owes nobody nothing and change takes time but everybody wants change so what will be prioritised and in what way? Now, are you in a position of power or influence? Are you loaded?
Make the best out of situations is what I meant @ 'being smart'. There are loopholes to everything.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Gales
Sorry to be pedantic, but she then said that her gay relationship was a choice, not her sexuality.
Just googled it and so she did, sorry! Although I find it a wee bit suspicious that she went back and said that after a week of people bitching and claiming that she's set the entire movement for gay rights back. What she said in the first interview sounded pretty clear.
Anyhoo, my point still stands. I get that for individuals, it's incredibly annoying when other people try to tell you what you're feeling but in general I think it's a pointless argument when actually we should be saying that however our homosexuality occured, we expect to be treated equally.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days 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 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days 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 ?
