[Astronomical]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
Not all supporters of the gay movement are people who want to practice homosexuality and well the support did not come over night for the movement.
I just find the idea of two men having sex wrong.

Why? It is a practice that was in fact the societal norm as far back as 450 BC within ancient greek city states; every man married a woman, but almost all men preferred to, and regularly did, have sex with men.

These same people invented science, maths, theatre and democracy.

[Lady Maleficent]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
If you want to give marriage to gays then we should also give it to people who commit incest. Because who are we to judge their "love", right?

That's a slippery slope argument.

Whereas homosexual relationships cause no harms, incestuous relationships can - and not just birth defects.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
If you want to give marriage to gays then we should also give it to people who commit incest. Because who are we to judge their "love", right?

You have this strange obsession with bringing up incest and pedophilia in these debates....I have yet to understand why.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Llamageddon]

I wonder whether there are more practising christians or homosexuals in this country.

[blueray]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
I wonder whether there are more practising christians or homosexuals in this country.

What are you trying to say by this?

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
I wonder whether there are more practising christians or homosexuals in this country.

Does it matter?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by blueray)
What are you trying to say by this?

I'm just thinking about it from a political perspective with regards to who forms the larger voting block.

[askew116]

(Original post by justanotherposter)
This is probably a controversial opinion but I honestly believe in a couple hundred years incest will be legal. Assuming precautions are taken to prevent pregnancy from incest couples there is no logical reason for it to be outlawed, obviously though we all would find the idea repulsive (myself included,) which is why it isn't legal, however a few hundred years ago the idea of homosexuality would have been found repulsive yet the majority of the western population now accepts it.

100% agree on this one. The one and only logical (emphasise logical) argument against incest is the possibility (likelihood) of deformed children as a result of pregnancy from incest. If there's either safe sex and/or is gay in nature, then there's no logical reason to criminalise it, although I personally find the idea repulsive. But then I personally find heterosexual sex repulsive too, so there you go.

[justanotherposter]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
I'm just thinking about it from a political perspective with regards to who forms the larger voting block.

There are more practising Christians I'd imagine (although I've been baptised and to keep mum happy I say I'm Christian on some forms, despite being an agnostic atheist, so how many Christians actually follow the faith strongly I don't know,) however you don't have to be gay to support homosexual freedom, from what I can tell the people who support gay rights exceeds the Christian population who actually care about this.

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by Astronomical)
Why? It is a practice that was in fact the societal norm as far back as 450 BC within ancient greek city states; every man married a woman, but almost all men preferred to, and regularly did, have sex with men.

These same people invented science, maths, theatre and democracy.

So you have the statistics to claim that almost all men liked having gay sex all over the world in 450BC?

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
You have this strange obsession with bringing up incest and pedophilia in these debates....I have yet to understand why.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Well because everyone tells me that as a society which needs to progress we need to allow gay marriage. But then how far do we allow this so called progression to go? Do we take everything that was looked down upon (in the case as recently as the 60s) and just accept it and give in to every demand?
I mean these days you can't even be a prominent public figure and be against homosexuality, because you're attacked from every side, no matter how small your objection. E.g. the chick-fil-a incident currently taking place in the USA.

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by justanotherposter)
There are more practising Christians I'd imagine (although I've been baptised and to keep mum happy I say I'm Christian on some forms, despite being an agnostic atheist, so how many Christians actually follow the faith strongly I don't know,) however you don't have to be gay to support homosexual freedom, from what I can tell the people who support gay rights exceeds the Christian population who actually care about this.

I dunno, maybe it's because I'm a scientist living in a fairly trendy, middle class area but I personally know more openly gay people than openly christian. There are people who say they believe in god sure, but the people I know who go to church only do so to get their kids into the nicer local catholic schools.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
Well because everyone tells me that as a society which needs to progress we need to allow gay marriage. But then how far do we allow this so called progression to go? Do we take everything that was looked down upon (in the case as recently as the 60s) and just accept it and give in to every demand?
I mean these days you can't even be a prominent public figure and be against homosexuality, because you're attacked from every side, no matter how small your objection. E.g. the chick-fil-a incident currently taking place in the USA.

It isn't unconditional acceptance of anything. Progression is looking at topics and moving forward based on rational 'arguments'. It's looking critically at things and seeing what is valid and sound reasoning and what isn't and using that to help determine how society should progress. Just because homosexuality has become accepted doesn't necessitate other things be accepted. Each thing must be evaluated, so your constant bringing up of other things is completely useless.

There are plenty of prominent public figures who are, like most Republicans in the US for example, and even Chick-fil-A has support of many people. So they are not attacked from every side. But none of their reasoning for being against homosexuality is valid. The reason people are criticized for being against homosexuality is because there are no valid reasons to be against it.

EDIT: You are using a 'slippery slope' argument, as Lady Maleficent said, and this is a fallacious argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slipper...e#As_a_fallacy

[Lady Maleficent]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
Well because everyone tells me that as a society which needs to progress we need to allow gay marriage. But then how far do we allow this so called progression to go? Do we take everything that was looked down upon (in the case as recently as the 60s) and just accept it and give in to every demand?

Interracial marriage was 'looked down upon' not too long ago, did we just subscribe to bigoted and uninformed attitudes? No, and now we realise that looking down on interracial marriage is irrational.

'Progression' is not a linear concept. The slippery slope argument is an infantile attempt at scaremongering, as gay marriage has not relation to incest, etc.

Each concept should be evaluated on its own merits. Gay marriage causes no harm, yet it is evident that incest-based relationships can cause harm.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
I dunno, maybe it's because I'm a scientist living in a fairly trendy, middle class area but I personally know more openly gay people than openly christian. There are people who say they believe in god sure, but the people I know who go to church only do so to get their kids into the nicer local catholic schools.

But...can't they be Christian and not go to church?

[martinix]

(Original post by Kiss)
Because everyone is afraid of offending anyone nowadays.

They're afraid only of potentially offending the Muslims as Christians are being mocked all the time and no one seems to be bothered.

Btw, I'm an atheist, so I'm not biased here

[Kiss]

(Original post by martinix)
They're afraid only of potentially offending the Muslims as Christians are being mocked all the time and no one seems to be bothered.

Btw, I'm an atheist, so I'm not biased here

No, everyone is afraid of offending some minority group - Christians are a majority so they don´t get anything but anyone else, muslism, jews, gays, blacks, asians, feminists etc. get special treatment lest they be offended.

[martinix]

You're right, but considering the fact that Muslims breed like rabbits, it's hard to say for how long they will remain a minority group in the UK.