Other than religious, what reason is there to ban homosexuality?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by donutellme
I'm not talking about the importance of those issues. Thankfully they are the vast minority. I'm talking about the reason for acceptance. I don't want people to go around marrying their parents and so. But they will just use the reason that theyre consensual adults, and we won't have something to counter with. Ah well.
Let's just agree to disagree then haha. Lets hope we never clash again. And if we do, know I do it in good faith
Let's just agree to disagree then haha. Lets hope we never clash again. And if we do, know I do it in good faith
But we do, pal. We do have a lot of things to counter that and when it comes to gays - we don't. We have the Bible, the Quran, all of the holy books and nothing else. What, AIDS statistics? They'll happen with or without anybody else's blessing on the matter. The world's problem with STI's is fuelled by heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, drug users, transsexuals and animals alike. The picture is so much bigger than that.
Okay, sure.
Original post by ivybridge
But we do, pal. We do have a lot of things to counter that and when it comes to gays - we don't. We have the Bible, the Quran, all of the holy books and nothing else. What, AIDS statistics? They'll happen with or without anybody else's blessing on the matter. The world's problem with STI's is fuelled by heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, drug users, transsexuals and animals alike. The picture is so much bigger than that.
Okay, sure.
Okay, sure.
What do we have to counter with?
I'm not well informed enough to make a call on STI statistics. But Im sure it could be solved with people being more responsible. It's not a core issue.
Original post by Underscore__
If that's your argument you could say that some day rape and murder will be legal.
But homosexuality doesn't harm anyone either...
Posted from TSR Mobile
But homosexuality doesn't harm anyone either...
Posted from TSR Mobile
Well not in the short run at least, but anyway. I know it doesn't harm anyone, i'm just saying that: if we accept homosexuality for those reasons, then we must accept other things as well, otherwise we are hypocrites and not worth ****.
There is no good reason to ban homosexuality, even religious reasons are terrible and generally somewhat hypocritical and inconsistent (i.e. picking and choosing whatever passage suits ones opinions whilst ignoring 99% of whatever 2000 year old book you wish to tie your life to.)
There's a reason homosexuality is only outright banned in the most socially and culturally backward backwaters of human existence.
There's a reason homosexuality is only outright banned in the most socially and culturally backward backwaters of human existence.
Original post by donutellme
What do we have to counter with?
I'm not well informed enough to make a call on STI statistics. But Im sure it could be solved with people being more responsible. It's not a core issue.
I'm not well informed enough to make a call on STI statistics. But Im sure it could be solved with people being more responsible. It's not a core issue.
Well, for a start there's the children dimension.
If a heterosexual incestuous couple decide to have children, there is a 99.9% chance that the child will have a genetic disorder that could be life threatening or seriously disrupt the quality of life of the offspring. This brings a lot of ethical issues into the mix that aren't interested in whether or not the couple are incestuous, but about the child in question.
This same dimension does not hold against gay couples. The arguments against gays having children stem largely from interpretations of vague statistics or religious beliefs.
Secondly, there's the issue of family relationships.
In ways that homosexuality does not, incest can distort, disturb and disrupt the family dynamics and have an impact on a greater number of people.
Being gay does not instinctively harm anybody else. People can feel disturbed or upset about learning someone close to them is gay, but that stems from their own issue with the topic and not the fact that person themselves is queer.
There's also the issue of familial force - is there family-based pressure that causes the relationship to occur? This argument is less strong because you can just bring it back to consent which is a problem across all relationships and all sexual orientations and genders.
When it comes to bestiality, there are other issues such as consent, reproduction, and, to an extent, the quality of the relationship.
With consent - the language barrier and more domesticated nature of most pets, which are the animals humans are likely to get close enough to in order to make having sexual intercourse plausible, makes consent rather impossible. Of course, if the animal took the situation without restraint or whatnot, one could argue it is consensual. However, you can never know. Is this because the animal is too domesticated and submissive? Or, does the animal genuinely want to be with the human being in question? This type of ambiguity is not found comparable to consent issues in human relationships, gay or straight.
Reproduction between a human and an animal is unsuccessful and can cause one or the other serious problems. This is not true of gay couples. Gay men and women simply cannot conceive together. That's all there is to it. But they can conceive with a surrogate or through human intervention, in an arguably natural and healthy manner.
The quality of the relationship also comes under scrutiny as animals have different base instincts, cannot contribute to human society, are not intellectually capable enough of actually having a relationship with a human successfully, and so whether or not the action is moral is questionable in a way that homosexual love is not.
Of course, the angles you may take vary depending on the code of ethics to which you subscribe but these are just a few of the things that sprang to mind for me. Feel free to disagree or whatnot.
(edited 7 years ago)
Also, for the strange people who make the "if we allow homosexuality we'll soon allow bestiality and incest etc" argument, let's consider why we do not allow these things.
Incest has historically been and is nowadays used as a means of control and sexual exploitation, more so in parent-child relationships, but prevalent in any kind of incestuous relationship. Thus, as a parent could manipulate a child until they reach the age of 16 and then enter into a relationship with them, it is necessary to have safeguards to protect these children.
Regarding bestiality, well, how exactly does one get consent from an animal. In short, you cannot, thus if consent cannot be given the state and society cannot sanction the relationship, hence it is not legal.
To compare homosexuality to either of these would serve only to highlight ones ignorance of the matter at hand, so it is best to not wade in with one's absurd opinion
To any religious people, do remember that Adam and Eve had only two sons (no daughters) yet managed to populate the world before you give lecturers in moral or sexual behaviour and ethics.
Incest has historically been and is nowadays used as a means of control and sexual exploitation, more so in parent-child relationships, but prevalent in any kind of incestuous relationship. Thus, as a parent could manipulate a child until they reach the age of 16 and then enter into a relationship with them, it is necessary to have safeguards to protect these children.
Regarding bestiality, well, how exactly does one get consent from an animal. In short, you cannot, thus if consent cannot be given the state and society cannot sanction the relationship, hence it is not legal.
To compare homosexuality to either of these would serve only to highlight ones ignorance of the matter at hand, so it is best to not wade in with one's absurd opinion
To any religious people, do remember that Adam and Eve had only two sons (no daughters) yet managed to populate the world before you give lecturers in moral or sexual behaviour and ethics.
Original post by ivybridge
Well, for a start there's the children dimension.
If a heterosexual incestuous couple decide to have children, there is a 99.9% chance that the child will have a genetic disorder that could be life threatening or seriously disrupt the quality of life of the offspring. This brings a lot of ethical issues into the mix that aren't interested in whether or not the couple are incestuous, but about the child in question.
This same dimension does not hold against gay couples. The arguments against gays having children stem largely from interpretations of vague statistics or religious beliefs.
Secondly, there's the issue of family relationships.
In ways that homosexuality does not, incest can distort, disturb and disrupt the family dynamics and have an impact on a greater number of people.
Being gay does not instinctively harm anybody else. People can feel disturbed or upset about learning someone close to them is gay, but that stems from their own issue with the topic and not the fact that person themselves is queer.
There's also the issue of familial force - is there family-based pressure that causes the relationship to occur? This argument is less strong because you can just bring it back to consent which is a problem across all relationships and all sexual orientations and genders.
When it comes to bestiality, there are other issues such as consent, reproduction, and, to an extent, the quality of the relationship.
With consent - the language barrier and more domesticated nature of most pets, which are the animals humans are likely to get close enough to in order to make having sexual intercourse plausible, makes consent rather impossible. Of course, if the animal take the situation without restraint or whatnot, one could argue it is consensual. However, you can never know. I this because the animal is too domesticated and submissive? Or, does the animal genuinely want to be with the human being in question? This type of ambiguity is not found comparable to consent issues in human relationships, gay or straight.
Reproduction between a human and an animal is unsuccessful and can cause one or the other serious problems. This is not true of gay couples. Gay men and women simply cannot conceive together. That's all there is to it. But they can conceive with a surrogate or through human intervention, in an arguably natural and healthy manner.
The quality of the relationship also comes under scrutiny as animals have different base instincts, cannot contribute to human society, are not intellectually capable enough of actually having a relationship with a human successfully, and so whether or not the action is moral is questionable in a way that homosexual love is not.
Of course, the angles you may take vary depending on the code of ethics to which you subscribe but these are just a few of the things that sprang to mind for me. Feel free to disagree or whatnot.
If a heterosexual incestuous couple decide to have children, there is a 99.9% chance that the child will have a genetic disorder that could be life threatening or seriously disrupt the quality of life of the offspring. This brings a lot of ethical issues into the mix that aren't interested in whether or not the couple are incestuous, but about the child in question.
This same dimension does not hold against gay couples. The arguments against gays having children stem largely from interpretations of vague statistics or religious beliefs.
Secondly, there's the issue of family relationships.
In ways that homosexuality does not, incest can distort, disturb and disrupt the family dynamics and have an impact on a greater number of people.
Being gay does not instinctively harm anybody else. People can feel disturbed or upset about learning someone close to them is gay, but that stems from their own issue with the topic and not the fact that person themselves is queer.
There's also the issue of familial force - is there family-based pressure that causes the relationship to occur? This argument is less strong because you can just bring it back to consent which is a problem across all relationships and all sexual orientations and genders.
When it comes to bestiality, there are other issues such as consent, reproduction, and, to an extent, the quality of the relationship.
With consent - the language barrier and more domesticated nature of most pets, which are the animals humans are likely to get close enough to in order to make having sexual intercourse plausible, makes consent rather impossible. Of course, if the animal take the situation without restraint or whatnot, one could argue it is consensual. However, you can never know. I this because the animal is too domesticated and submissive? Or, does the animal genuinely want to be with the human being in question? This type of ambiguity is not found comparable to consent issues in human relationships, gay or straight.
Reproduction between a human and an animal is unsuccessful and can cause one or the other serious problems. This is not true of gay couples. Gay men and women simply cannot conceive together. That's all there is to it. But they can conceive with a surrogate or through human intervention, in an arguably natural and healthy manner.
The quality of the relationship also comes under scrutiny as animals have different base instincts, cannot contribute to human society, are not intellectually capable enough of actually having a relationship with a human successfully, and so whether or not the action is moral is questionable in a way that homosexual love is not.
Of course, the angles you may take vary depending on the code of ethics to which you subscribe but these are just a few of the things that sprang to mind for me. Feel free to disagree or whatnot.
Hear, hear.
Vayji + vayji and wiener + wiener =/= children?
Homosexuality is uncommon? People have their reasons for banning it that you're not going to like?
Homosexuality is uncommon? People have their reasons for banning it that you're not going to like?
Original post by donutellme
Well not in the short run at least, but anyway. I know it doesn't harm anyone, i'm just saying that: if we accept homosexuality for those reasons, then we must accept other things as well, otherwise we are hypocrites and not worth ****.
You can't 'well not in the short run at least' and then follow it up with 'I know it doesn't harm anyone'. Your implying it does long term harm so expand on that.
If we accept heterosexuality then we must accept other things as well, otherwise we are hypocrites and not worth ****. - you're ignoring that with virtually any argument like that you make I can swap homosexual with heterosexual
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by SmileyVibe
Vayji + vayji and wiener + wiener =/= children?
Homosexuality is uncommon? People have their reasons for banning it that you're not going to like?
Homosexuality is uncommon? People have their reasons for banning it that you're not going to like?
And this means it should be banned because...
Original post by BenC1997
Also, for the strange people who make the "if we allow homosexuality we'll soon allow bestiality and incest etc" argument, let's consider why we do not allow these things.
Incest has historically been and is nowadays used as a means of control and sexual exploitation, more so in parent-child relationships, but prevalent in any kind of incestuous relationship. Thus, as a parent could manipulate a child until they reach the age of 16 and then enter into a relationship with them, it is necessary to have safeguards to protect these children.
Regarding bestiality, well, how exactly does one get consent from an animal. In short, you cannot, thus if consent cannot be given the state and society cannot sanction the relationship, hence it is not legal.
To compare homosexuality to either of these would serve only to highlight ones ignorance of the matter at hand, so it is best to not wade in with one's absurd opinion
To any religious people, do remember that Adam and Eve had only two sons (no daughters) yet managed to populate the world before you give lecturers in moral or sexual behaviour and ethics.
Incest has historically been and is nowadays used as a means of control and sexual exploitation, more so in parent-child relationships, but prevalent in any kind of incestuous relationship. Thus, as a parent could manipulate a child until they reach the age of 16 and then enter into a relationship with them, it is necessary to have safeguards to protect these children.
Regarding bestiality, well, how exactly does one get consent from an animal. In short, you cannot, thus if consent cannot be given the state and society cannot sanction the relationship, hence it is not legal.
To compare homosexuality to either of these would serve only to highlight ones ignorance of the matter at hand, so it is best to not wade in with one's absurd opinion
To any religious people, do remember that Adam and Eve had only two sons (no daughters) yet managed to populate the world before you give lecturers in moral or sexual behaviour and ethics.
Lol so many flaws in your strange little corrupted rant, it's cringeworthy. For example, since when did religious people=Christianity? You're very closed minded. Seems like you can't look outside the box. Nvm I don't have time for this anymore.
Original post by GlassyMarbles
I'd like to say beforehand that I absolutely don't support homophobia; I have the misfortune of knowing some against homosexuality that are mostly otherwise good people.
- Increased chance of STDs
- "Unnatural"; little to no accounts of it pre-20th century
- Possible eventual proliferation may lead to human extinction [I know, I know, this is so stupid]
- Acceptance of homosexuality may lead to increased bestiality and objectophilia due to "the influence that you can have sex with anything now"
- Increased chance of STDs
- "Unnatural"; little to no accounts of it pre-20th century
- Possible eventual proliferation may lead to human extinction [I know, I know, this is so stupid]
- Acceptance of homosexuality may lead to increased bestiality and objectophilia due to "the influence that you can have sex with anything now"
This guy knows what's up
Original post by Luke Kostanjsek
If you're asking from a theoretical point of view, I guess you could've made an argument 40 or 50 years ago about the far higher risk of transmitting HIV through male homosexual sex than heterosexual sex? And if a disease with a similar pattern of transmission were to appear overnight and become endemic, that could be reasonable.
If you're asking practically, as in why people would want to ban it right now, I don't think there's any reason ever given other than religious tbh. I don't think I've ever come across a homophobic atheist.
If you're asking practically, as in why people would want to ban it right now, I don't think there's any reason ever given other than religious tbh. I don't think I've ever come across a homophobic atheist.
Believe me there are, but atheist homophobes often don't realise they are homophobic. People who feel uncomfortable around gays or distances themselves from gays are examples of those type of people.
I once heard someone say 'I'm not homophobic I just feel uncomfortable around gays'. A contradiction in a sentence I must say. And this person was an atheist.
Other than religion and culture, I don't see any reason why homosexuality would be banned, or looked down upon. For example, in some parts of the world, whilst homosexuality and same-sex marriage is recognised by law, it is still looked down upon / or not accepted by a large percentage of the population (i.e. in Argentina).
Original post by The person
"They're not remotely alike". . 500 years ago or whatever, homosexuality was taboo. If you were homosexual you were basically the devil. In this era, NOBODY WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT HOMOSEXUALITY WOULD EVENTUALLY BE LEGALISED IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE IT WAS SO BAD AT THE TIME.
Now in our era, beastialiy and incest are taboo and illegal and it's socially just wrong and awful and bad in every way, right?(just like homosexuality was).
But if homosexuality is legalised then so can beastiality. It just takes a few hundred years.
The only difference in my analogy is the substitution of homosexuality with beastiality.
Now in our era, beastialiy and incest are taboo and illegal and it's socially just wrong and awful and bad in every way, right?(just like homosexuality was).
But if homosexuality is legalised then so can beastiality. It just takes a few hundred years.
The only difference in my analogy is the substitution of homosexuality with beastiality.
Homosexuality has been both accepted and shunned throughout history. There has been no set pattern that would reinforce your argument. The same goes for incest and polygamy.
Original post by The person
Lol so many flaws in your strange little corrupted rant, it's cringeworthy. For example, since when did religious people=Christianity? You're very closed minded. Seems like you can't look outside the box. Nvm I don't have time for this anymore.
So saying "religious people" rather than "Christians" renders my argument flawed. Ok then.
I'm so close minded...yet I am arguing in favour of homosexual rights.
It is also hardly a rant, nor "corrupted" which is a strange adjective to use, how does one corrupt an argument?
Saying you don't have time often translates as you can't, so that's fine by me frankly.
What is cringe-worthy is your failed attempts to rubbish my argument without giving any form of retort, fantastic debating skills I must say.
Original post by SmileyVibe
Vayji + vayji and wiener + wiener =/= children?
So you get pregnant in every relationship you have?
Would you also ban infertile straight couples from being together?
Homosexuality is uncommon?
How is that a justification for banning it? So are interracial relationships.
People have their reasons for banning it that you're not going to like?
We tend to require good reasons for the state to ban most things, so they need to provide credible justification.
Original post by BirdIsWord
This guy knows what's up
Not really...
Original post by The person
Lol so many flaws in your strange little corrupted rant, it's cringeworthy. For example, since when did religious people=Christianity? You're very closed minded. Seems like you can't look outside the box. Nvm I don't have time for this anymore.
It was taking Christianity as an example... you have nothing else to criticise so you use that? Really? Well, for someone who doesn't have time, you're sure as hell making enough of it to waste on stupid comments like this.
@BenC1997 made good points that make sense. Deal with it, really...
Original post by Mactotaur
Really, there's nothing wrong with incest apart from the stigma. Yes, there are genetic problems, but unless you have children it doesn't hurt anyone.
Original post by Mactotaur
Really, there's nothing wrong with incest apart from the stigma. Yes, there are genetic problems, but unless you have children it doesn't hurt anyone.
Alright, Oedipus, let us know when your visitation hours are.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day 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 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day 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 ?
