What harm do homosexuals actually cause?
Scroll to see replies
As much harm as heterosexuals. Both are capable of the same crimes and immoral actions.
Want to know why? Because heterosexuals and homosexuals are both human.
Want to know why? Because heterosexuals and homosexuals are both human.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by clh_hilary
It's 100%, it's still technically just 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% because you can never be too sure.
But they can be tested twice, which will make the result safer than having heterosexual tested only once, especially when they do not expect them to engage only in safe sex.
Also, 'LGBTQ men'. Since when are lesbians men? They also have the lowest rate for everything among all groups.
But they can be tested twice, which will make the result safer than having heterosexual tested only once, especially when they do not expect them to engage only in safe sex.
Also, 'LGBTQ men'. Since when are lesbians men? They also have the lowest rate for everything among all groups.
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All "non-straight" men can be LGBTQ (as an umbrella term), but not all LGBTQ people will be men.
In any event, thanks for the informative and thought-provoking critique of my post.
Original post by Bazbaz
An ageing population is an issue, but once they stop being able to develop antibiotics that actually work it won't be.
That's really callous.
Original post by redferry
Mainly flooding.
Quite.
After all there are plenty of men who are kind, loving, caring, good looking, in great shape, great conversationalists, good dressers and who really understand women. Unfortunately, they like cock too.
Spoiler
Original post by Flauta
Homosexuals don't cause any harm as a result of their homosexualness.
Homosexuals don't cause any harm as a result of their homosexualness.
(Homosexuality)
Original post by clh_hilary
The death of Freddie Mercury.
To be fair, this one kind of is homosexuality's fault.
Original post by clh_hilary
The chance of anyone with any sexual orientation contacting HIV is the same.
Just because s/he is of a certain orientation does not mean s/he will have a particular type of sex with a particular type of person.
The only way you can phrase it is that 'it has a higher possibility of having a man with HIV if you are to choose one person from the male gay population and one from the male straight population'.
Just because s/he is of a certain orientation does not mean s/he will have a particular type of sex with a particular type of person.
The only way you can phrase it is that 'it has a higher possibility of having a man with HIV if you are to choose one person from the male gay population and one from the male straight population'.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, then. Because it isn't.
What "particular type of person" do you mean? Someone who is a male homosexual is infinitely more likely to have sex with a man than with a woman. That is a certain orientation with a particular type of person - one who has a penis.
Yes, I agree with that.
I'll play devils advocate here.
With more people being taught it is ok to be homosexual and have homosexual relationships in school, more kids may become gay.
I know because people that I knew who were straight before became gay later, I asked how is that possible aren;t you born gay,they said some say so, but thats not really true, they said it was due to hormonal imbalances shifted towards men instead of women.
Similar story like that of a man that became gay after a hospital operation.
With the stigma removed from schools, more people will become gay and this could mean
a problem of less population and mean a greater tax burden on a smaller population who are supporting the ageing gay population.
Also the argument that less kids means less global warming is insignificant. If we all turned vegetarian we could have lots of kids since they wouldn't be consuming high co2 reared meat.
With more people being taught it is ok to be homosexual and have homosexual relationships in school, more kids may become gay.
I know because people that I knew who were straight before became gay later, I asked how is that possible aren;t you born gay,they said some say so, but thats not really true, they said it was due to hormonal imbalances shifted towards men instead of women.
Similar story like that of a man that became gay after a hospital operation.
With the stigma removed from schools, more people will become gay and this could mean
a problem of less population and mean a greater tax burden on a smaller population who are supporting the ageing gay population.
Also the argument that less kids means less global warming is insignificant. If we all turned vegetarian we could have lots of kids since they wouldn't be consuming high co2 reared meat.
Original post by PythianLegume
To be fair, this one kind of is homosexuality's fault.
I literally just said that.
Also, the existence of Adam Lambert.
Original post by clh_hilary
'Gay cancer'.
That's a stupid name. Cancer doesn't spread like that. Cancer doesn't spread at all!
Original post by clh_hilary
Because at the same time more homosexuals are tested than heterosexuals proportionally.
People aren't just arbitrarily tested for HIV. People go to be tested for it if they experience symptoms that could be caused by it. Yes it is likely that more gay people go for tests than straight because there is higher awareness of it in the gay community, but the difference is unlikely to be enough to account for the difference in statistics.
Anyway, I should be revising. Think what you want to think about rates of HIV.
Original post by Musie Suzie
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, then. Because it isn't.
What "particular type of person" do you mean? Someone who is a male homosexual is infinitely more likely to have sex with a man than with a woman. That is a certain orientation with a particular type of person - one who has a penis.
Yes, I agree with that.
What "particular type of person" do you mean? Someone who is a male homosexual is infinitely more likely to have sex with a man than with a woman. That is a certain orientation with a particular type of person - one who has a penis.
Yes, I agree with that.
Then you would just be wrong.
The chances of any male contacting HIV with anal sex (topping or bottoming, either one of them as they have different rates) is the same.
The chances are on the particular sexual behaviour, eg being penetrated by a man unprotected in the anus, ejaculated, not on a sexual orientation.
Original post by clh_hilary
I literally just said that.
Also, the existence of Adam Lambert.
Also, the existence of Adam Lambert.
I thought you were being sarcastic when you lumped it together with fascism and Catholicism.
Just to point something out, in the same Guardian article mentioned above (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/nov/29/uk-gay-men-test-positive-hiv-record-numbers) it says: "The black African community in Britain also faces a higher risk than average, with 37 out of every 1,000 living with HIV last year. Far more men and women in the black African community are diagnosed late than gay men – 68% and 61% respectively, compared with 35%.". Yet, if anyone suggested a one year ban on black Africans it would automatically be considered racism.
The ban on MSM is as discriminatory as a ban on black Africans would be. The fact is, it's easier to "sell" that gay men have more aids, so we'll prevent infection by not allowing them to give blood. It's discriminatory.
The ban on MSM is as discriminatory as a ban on black Africans would be. The fact is, it's easier to "sell" that gay men have more aids, so we'll prevent infection by not allowing them to give blood. It's discriminatory.
Original post by Musie Suzie
People aren't just arbitrarily tested for HIV. People go to be tested for it if they experience symptoms that could be caused by it. Yes it is likely that more gay people go for tests than straight because there is higher awareness of it in the gay community, but the difference is unlikely to be enough to account for the difference in statistics.
Anyway, I should be revising. Think what you want to think about rates of HIV.
Anyway, I should be revising. Think what you want to think about rates of HIV.
Yes, indeed thank what you want, you would just be once again, wrong.
HIV testing is a lot more sold to the gay community than the straight crowd. An average straight guy on the street is unlikely to ever have thought of getting tested (eg my father or my brother), but a gay person is very likely to have thought of it.
HIV does not lead to symptoms. AIDS do not necessarily have symptoms. Assuming the rates of having symptoms on both a homosexual and heterosexual person is the same, the gay community would have more positives getting tested because of the way higher awareness.
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
That's a stupid name. Cancer doesn't spread like that. Cancer doesn't spread at all!
Unfortunately stupidity and misinformation do.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Blueray2
I'll play devils advocate here.
With more people being taught it is ok to be homosexual and have homosexual relationships in school, more kids may become gay.
With more people being taught it is ok to be homosexual and have homosexual relationships in school, more kids may become gay.
And that would be a problem how?
Original post by Blueray2
With the stigma removed from schools, more people will become gay and this could mean
a problem of less population and mean a greater tax burden on a smaller population who are supporting the ageing gay population.
a problem of less population and mean a greater tax burden on a smaller population who are supporting the ageing gay population.
Oh, I see. I can't see that being too much of a problem, as I don't think enough people will decide not to have kids to change much of anything. In fact, if anything, I think more gays will save taxpayer dollars by taking more children out of the adoption system, which at the moment is full to bursting.
Original post by clh_hilary
Unfortunately stupidity and misinformation does.
^ Yup that.
Original post by PythianLegume
I thought you were being sarcastic when you lumped it together with fascism and Catholicism.
Well everything is caused by homosexuality.
We aren't actually sure about Freddie Mercury because ever if he's gay, it doesn't mean his HIV was contacted from a male sex partner, or with sex, especially considering how he was a celebrity and celebrities take quite a lot of drugs.
Original post by Lady Comstock
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.
Monogamy was mainly useful to reduce confusion regarding inheritance. I think the point raised before you still stands
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2927
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 15 minutes ago
University of Oxford 2025 Undergraduate Applicants Official ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 17 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 19 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week 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 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 17 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 19 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week 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 ?
