Tangible downsides of homosexuality to society?

Scroll to see replies

I agree. Just wait for others to start calling me a homophobic bigot for pointing out that being homosexual isn't a good thing.

I didn't say that, honey...

Reply 21

scrotgrot

Original post by william walker

We don't live in a society, we live the British nation state. This is the most important point I can make.

So you don't have any issue at all with sodomy then? It is just the same as sex between a man and women? That is the damaging thing it makes it fine for people to have sexual relations outside of marriage. Which is why the British nation state for a very long time had anti-sodomy laws.

I have provided tangible downsides, but you will not accept them. You people never do accept downsides and problem for your actions.

Tbh I would have thought a society that encouraged men to get rid of their desires through sodomy would mean they wouldn't be quite so encouraged to fornicate with women before marriage. This would actually lead to greater stability without kids born out of wedlock.

Reply 22

Lady Comstock

Original post by william walker

So you don't have any issue at all with sodomy then? It is just the same as sex between a man and women?

No, I do not have an issue with it, and many heterosexual couples engage in it. I struggle to see what actual, tangible downsides it brings to society beyond your imagination.

That is the damaging thing it makes it fine for people to have sexual relations outside of marriage. Which is why the British nation state for a very long time had anti-sodomy laws.

Again, I struggle to see what actual, tangible damage sex outside marriage causes to a society.

I have provided tangible downsides, but you will not accept them. You people never do accept downsides and problem for your actions.

How are they tangible? You've basically said "they're wrong!!!!1" and left it at that.

Reply 23

Lady Comstock

Original post by tomfailinghelp

Perhaps gay marriage contributes to the erosion of heterosexual marriage as something to be taken seriously? I wouldn't be surprised if the generally relaxing social culture in England, of which homosexual acceptance is a consequence and perhaps a cause, contributes to fewer heterosexual marriages.

We don't know how having homosexual parents influences a child, although these families are rare so probably not a significant problem.

Most evidence suggests there is no negative effect.

But Homosexuals are notorious spreaders of sexual disease. 13% of homosexual men in London have HIV, so this is a downside.

But so are heterosexual couples in some areas. And that's not something inherent to homosexuality, but more cultural.

Reply 24

Izzyeviel

If it was good enough for Alexander the Great, it's good enough for the rest of us.

Don't really understand why the church is against it though... you'd have thought they'd be all for it.

Reply 25

ESPORTIVA

Its wrong and perverted.

This comment is gonna get removed by the mods

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 26

Lady Comstock

Original post by ESPORTIVA

Its wrong and perverted.

This comment is gonna get removed by the mods

Posted from TSR Mobile

That's not a clear or tangible reason.

Reply 27

Martyn*

It is very tough being gay as it is. A lot of gay men are very lonely and many don't have many friends.

Reply 28

thunder_chunky

It causes storms and other bad weather conditions. This has been proven by UKIP.

Original post by ESPORTIVA

Its wrong and perverted.

This comment is gonna get removed by the mods

Posted from TSR Mobile

Or they'll leave it so we can laugh at you.

Reply 29

tomfailinghelp

Original post by Lady Comstock

Where is the evidence for this? And even if there is evidence that heterosexual marriage has declined since the introduction of homosexual marriage, then you would further need to prove a causative link, and not that heterosexual couples just see marriage as outdated and prefer not to get married.

Most evidence suggests there is no negative effect.

But so are heterosexual couples in some areas. And that's not something inherent to homosexuality, but more cultural.

I said perhaps. Can you not read? It is conjecture. I did not say that I have solid evidence for it, I did not say that I had any evidence for it at all. I suggested only that it was a possibility. Do you suggest that it is impossible that homosexuality 'contributes to the erosion of heterosexual marriage as something to be taken seriously'?

Besides, there was rather more emphasis in my post on the erosion of marriage as a consequence as well as acceptance of homosexuals, than of the acceptance of homosexuals as a cause of the erosion of marriage.

Does it? Could you provide me some link to this evidence? I'm inclined to believe that quite a rigorous collection of data and analysis would be necessary to conclude that 'there is no negative effect'.

Heterosexual couples in some areas yes, but proportionately more homosexuals. Its really rather confident of you to assert that 'that's not something inherent to homosexuality, but more cultural'. How have you drawn this conclusion? It seems to me that sodomy is inherent to homosexuality, and that sodomy is the form of sex most conducive to new HIV infections. In this case, isn't it reasonable to suggests that venereal disease is more closely linked to male homosexuality than heterosexuality, at least to some extent?

Reply 30

tomfailinghelp

Original post by Lady Comstock

That's not a clear or tangible reason.

Really?

I'd say that is very much clear and tangible. What don't you understand about something being 'wrong'? What don't you understand about something being 'perverted'?

Perhaps you should say instead 'I disagree'?

Reply 31

Lady Comstock

Original post by tomfailinghelp

Just because you prefix a statement with "perhaps" does not mean I cannot request evidence to support your argument, not least because I would be interested to read it.

And of course it's not impossible; what an odd question. My own view is that it is unlikely, and I struggle to see how heterosexuals' decision to marry is influenced by by the existence of homosexuals or homosexual marriage. Surely the most significant things that come to mind are how much love there is there, whether they want to commit, financial arrangements, etc.

Besides, there was rather more emphasis in my post on the erosion of marriage as a consequence as well as acceptance of homosexuals, than of the acceptance of homosexuals as a cause of the erosion of marriage.

Fair enough. I suppose marriage in its historic form in England was altered (I wouldn't personally say eroded) by the introduction of same-sex marriage. However, I think divorce probably did more to alter the historic form of marriage than same-sex marriage ever could.

Does it? Could you provide me some link to this evidence? I'm inclined to believe that quite a rigorous collection of data and analysis would be necessary to conclude that 'there is no negative effect'.

Merely searching "same sex parents study" on Google will lead you on a research trail.

Heterosexual couples in some areas yes, but proportionately more homosexuals. Its really rather confident of you to assert that 'that's not something inherent to homosexuality, but more cultural'. How have you drawn this conclusion?

Because it is a relatively recent phenomenon drawn from the cultural practices of some gay men. If it had existed throughout history, and gay men had a predisposition towards unsafe, anal-only sex, then that might suggest that it is more inherent. Just because something is prevalent in a community does not mean that it is inherent to that community, such as the notion that black people are more predisposed towards crime because there are disproportionately higher prisoner numbers.

It seems to me that sodomy is inherent to homosexuality, and that sodomy is the form of sex most conducive to new HIV infections.

Sodomy is about as inherent to homosexuality as it is to heterosexuality. And unsafe anal sex is the form of sex most conducive to new HIV infections.

In this case, isn't it reasonable to suggests that venereal disease is more closely linked to male homosexuality than heterosexuality, at least to some extent?

"Linked" suggests an inherent factor there, which I disagree with. I would agree HIV is is more prevalent in gay men in the West. And I do not have the statistics for gay men and heterosexuals with regards to other STIs, so it's casting the net rather wide to include all venereal disease.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 32

Lady Comstock

Original post by tomfailinghelp

"Unrestricted immigration affects public services and lowers wages".

"Unrestricted immigration is wrong and a disgrace".

Which one do you think is tangible and clear, or even worth taking into consideration? "Tangible" suggests something that is evident, actual and perceptible.

Reply 33

ESPORTIVA

Original post by thunder_chunky

It causes storms and other bad weather conditions. This has been proven by UKIP.

Or they'll leave it so we can laugh at you.

Laugh at the truth eh?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 34

thunder_chunky

Original post by ESPORTIVA

Laugh at the truth eh?

Posted from TSR Mobile

If that's what you want to believe.

Reply 35

Lady Comstock

Original post by ESPORTIVA

Laugh at the truth eh?

Posted from TSR Mobile

A subjective opinion, probably fuelled by religious indoctrination, is not the truth.

Reply 36

shadowdweller

Volunteer Section Leader

Original post by ESPORTIVA

Its wrong and perverted.

This comment is gonna get removed by the mods

That hardly answers the question though, really. For one thing, how is it wrong or perverted? And even on the assumption that it is, what tangible effects does that have on society?

Reply 37

RF_PineMarten

Original post by william walker

Sodomy, immoral marriage, sexual relations outside of marriage, homosexual culture, intolerance for those who disagree with homosexuality, government using immoral marriage to weaken the power of the Church of England and ruin the British governmental system. Total acceptance that homosexuality isn't a choice, rather than trying to help those people who become homosexuals because of abuse. So lots of things.

Sodomy - nothing wrong with anal sex, which heterosexual couples often do as well.

Immoral marriage - what's immoral about it?

Sex outside marriage - do you mean sex before marriage, or someone who is married having sex with someone else? If you mean the former, then that's no problem at all. If the latter, that is not exclusive to homosexuality.

Homosexual culture - define what you mean by that. What problems does it cause?

Intolerance of those who "disagree with homosexuality" - it's one thing to oppose gay marriage, but opposing homosexuality itself is just unjustifiable and irrational bigotry. A lot of people don't like to tolerate intolerance. The contempt homophobes get from most of the public is entirely deserved.

The current law means churches aren't forced to marry gay couples if they don't want to, while those that have no issue with it can. How is that "destroying" the church of England? The only thing even close to doing that is the decline of Christianity in Britain. And the church of England does not own marriage.

When have people become homosexual due to abuse? That sounds an awful lot like the "homosexual recruitment" conspiracy theory of the past, which involved paedophilia.

The simple facts are, homosexuality has no real impact on anyone who isn't gay, and sexuality is not a matter of choice. Therefore there are absolutely no downsides to society of homosexuality and gay acceptance. There are downsides, however, to religiously inspired bigotry such as homophobia.

Reply 38

tomfailinghelp

Original post by Lady Comstock

Just because you prefix a statement with "perhaps" does not mean I cannot request evidence to support your argument, not least because I would be interested to read it.

Of course, one cannot escape providing evidence for an argument just because they prefix it with 'perhaps'. The issue is, though, that I wasn't making an argument. The OP asked for suggestions of downsides to homosexuality, and I merely was establishing that the decline of ordinary marriage was a possibility.

And of course it's not impossible; what an odd question. My own view is that it is unlikely, and I struggle to see how heterosexuals' decision to marry is influenced by by the existence of homosexuals or homosexual marriage. Surely the most significant things that come to mind are how much love there is there, whether they want to commit, financial arrangements, etc.

It would be an odd question - that is what I am saying.

I also consider it to be unlikely, nor have I ever explicitly said or even suggested otherwise.

Almost certainly, but I didn't say otherwise. I said most likely both were consequences of a 'generally relaxing social culture' in Britain.

Merely searching "same sex parents study" on Google will lead you on a research trail.

I do not want to seem like I'm dodging the issue, but I'm sure you appreciate that I would have to assess every article on the issue on Google before responding if I were to take your advice. Obviously, I don't have time to do that.

Have you considered that, perhaps, it is a recent issue because HIV is a recent disease?

Okay, just because something is prevalent in a particular community 'does not mean that it is inherent to that community'. But you said, of the prevalence of HIV, 'that's not something inherent to homosexuality, but more cultural'. This isn't a claim established by that. If you're going to make such a radical claim I'd like quite a systematic argument.

What makes you think that the prevalence of HIV could not possibly be something inherent to homosexuality?

Sodomy is about as inherent to homosexuality as it is to heterosexuality. And unsafe anal sex is the form of sex most conducive to new HIV infections.

Really? I'd say it is about as inherent to homosexuality as vaginal sex is to heterosexuality. Don't you think that the progression from two mutually sexually interested males to anal penetration is quite predictable? Given that anal sex quite closely resembles vaginal sex, which is obviously off-limits to homosexuals, it seems to me that homosexuals could reasonably understood as naturally inclined to it.

Obviously, if you do not agree with my premises, you will not accept my conclusion. I'd like to clarify that I was really referring to HIV as just a typical venereal infection. This argument is, of course, applicable to a large number of such diseases and not solely HIV, it is just a good example with which I am familiar.

Original post by Lady Comstock

I think that both are tangible and clear. One statement suggests that unrestricted immigration affects public services and wages, the other suggests that unrestricted immigration is wrong. I'm not sure which part is really unclear? Perhaps you could say that the person should clarify exactly what is wrong about these things, if it is anything more specific than the phenomenon generally. But in this case, to describe it as not 'clear' or 'tangible' seems false.

I wonder, do you think that the phrase 'rape is wrong' is not 'clear' and 'tangible'?