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

What harm do homosexuals actually cause?

You would think that the reason so many societies condemn homosexuality is because it causes much more harm than good. Indeed, a large amount of humanity's rules and principles are based on the notion that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to others.

So what harm do homosexuals, and homosexuality as a concept, cause to warrant such condemnation?
(edited 10 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

I really have no idea, I've always wondered this too. I recently discovered that homosexuals cannot just sign up and give blood, why?
Religious problems and just general idiots.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 3
Avatar for Top Queen
Top Queen
It all goes down to religion. They go against what God wants.
Reply 4
Avatar for xDave-
xDave-
19
They're actually good for the environment as they can't have kids.
A large homosexual population can be partly responsible for less babies being born and therefore a society in which a large elderly population has to be financed by a smaller workforce.
Original post by tengentoppa
A large homosexual population can be partly responsible for less babies being born and therefore a society in which a large elderly population has to be financed by a smaller workforce.


And yet in over-populated parts of the world a large homosexual population for a period of time would be a blessing.

Furthermore, homosexuality has always remained at similar levels in civilisations across time; there has never, and probably never will be, a society with such a large homosexual population that it causes the problems you refer to.
Original post by xDave-
They're actually good for the environment as they can't have kids.


I agree with this, but I can also understand why homosexuality would have been discouraged in biblical times. Back then, I'm guessing the population was still relatively small and needed to grow, and so same sex relations would have conflicted with the need for everyone to breed as much as possible. But now we obviously have the opposite problem of overpopulation, therefore I see homosexuality as a benign thing in modern times and homophobia as rather pointless as we have other bigger things to worry about in this world.
Reply 8
Avatar for Blackacre
Blackacre
12
Original post by alis-volatpropriis
I really have no idea, I've always wondered this too. I recently discovered that homosexuals cannot just sign up and give blood, why?


It's actually anyone who has sex with MSM (men who have sex with men) - which includes gay men, bisexual men, and also women who have sex with (usually) bisexual men. They're not outright forbidden to donate, provided that the MSM encounter was over a year ago.

I believe the ban was originally in place due to concerns over the transmission of conditions such as HIV through blood. Here.
None.
Original post by Blackacre
It's actually anyone who has sex with MSM (men who have sex with men) - which includes gay men, bisexual men, and also women who have sex with (usually) bisexual men. They're not outright forbidden to donate, provided that the MSM encounter was over a year ago.

I believe the ban was originally in place due to concerns over the transmission of conditions such as HIV through blood. Here.


Thank you. But surely they test all blood that is donated regardless of the sexuality of the person that donated the blood. So why does it matter?
OP
What harm do homosexuals actually cause?


None.

Original post by alis-volatpropriis
I really have no idea, I've always wondered this too. I recently discovered that homosexuals cannot just sign up and give blood, why?


It's to do with increased likelihood of MSM people contracting HIV and other minor STDs. It's a pretty stupid rule though because blood donations go through extensive testing already. If HIV-infected blood was getting through (of which there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case) then it would be a testing problem, not a donation problem.
None.

/thread.
Original post by CherryCherryBoomBoom
I agree with this, but I can also understand why homosexuality would have been discouraged in biblical times. Back then, I'm guessing the population was still relatively small and needed to grow, and so same sex relations would have conflicted with the need for everyone to breed as much as possible. But now we obviously have the opposite problem of overpopulation, therefore I see homosexuality as a benign thing in modern times and homophobia as rather pointless as we have other bigger things to worry about in this world.


The contradiction to this logic lies in the fact that, generally, Christianity throughout the ages has promoted monogamous marriage. That certainly isn't conducive to growing a population.
Original post by DarkWhite
None.



It's to do with increased likelihood of MSM people contracting HIV and other minor STDs. It's a pretty stupid rule though because blood donations go through extensive testing already. If HIV-infected blood was getting through (of which there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case) then it would be a testing problem, not a donation problem.


That's exactly what I was thinking. Its very stupid, because heterosexual people that engage in anal sex still have the same risks of contracting HIV and STDs. Even though the ban was lifted in 2011, MSM people still have to wait a year.. all the "donate blood" advertisements are very misleading they say everyone can donate blood at anytime they never specify that in their campaigns.
Original post by alis-volatpropriis
Thank you. But surely they test all blood that is donated regardless of the sexuality of the person that donated the blood. So why does it matter?


I'm really not an expert on this, but I think it's traditionally been justified on the basis of risk/consequences.

Whilst it is true that all blood is tested, those tests aren't 100% effective. It's better to turn away a few "clear" LGBTQ men than to have someone who's HIV positive donate and their sample to have a false negative result (i.e. the virus is undetected). If this were to happen, a recipient of a blood transfusion could be infected with HIV - and whilst progress has been made in the fight against HIV/AIDS, it's still preferable not to have it.

Of course, all of this relies on the assumption that the HIV rate is significantly higher in the MSM community. I have no idea whether this is the case. This whole area is pretty controversial.
All these people saying 'none' are being foolish.

On average homosexuals cause about as much harm as heterosexuals, which is a non-zero quantity.

Please, there's no call for heterophobia.

:tongue:
Reply 17
Avatar for Bazbaz
Bazbaz
10
None at all, before Christianity it was pretty sociably acceptable in civilised (by western standards) society. And the argument that it's bad for population growth is just ridiculous, are you suggesting that we should get rid of infertile people, and force couples who don't want children to have them anyway? no? thought not. An ageing population is an issue, but once they stop being able to develop antibiotics that actually work it won't be.
Original post by alis-volatpropriis
I really have no idea, I've always wondered this too. I recently discovered that homosexuals cannot just sign up and give blood, why?


http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/nov/29/uk-gay-men-test-positive-hiv-record-numbers

"One in 20 gay men and men who occasionally have sex with men are HIV positive in the UK – and in London, the ratio is as high as one in 12."

Considering other reasons they don't let you give blood, like going to dangerous countries, this is definitely reason enough to not give it. Science, not prejudice.
Original post by Blackacre
I'm really not an expert on this, but I think it's traditionally been justified on the basis of risk/consequences.

Whilst it is true that all blood is tested, those tests aren't 100% effective. It's better to turn away a few "clear" LGBTQ men than to have someone who's HIV positive donate and their sample to have a false negative result (i.e. the virus is undetected). If this were to happen, a recipient of a blood transfusion could be infected with HIV - and whilst progress has been made in the fight against HIV/AIDS, it's still preferable not to have it.

Of course, all of this relies on the assumption that the HIV rate is significantly higher in the MSM community. I have no idea whether this is the case. This whole area is pretty controversial.


I see, it seems as if they are assuming the LGBT community have higher rates of HIV than heterosexuals.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you