Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Other than religious, what reason is there to ban homosexuality? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    You are literally being provided with research and still refusing to engage with it.

    Lost cause
    'Tis true, the lad provided many a link. But why waste my time when I know they aren't credible or prove anything? For if they did, the world would've known it by now, and every abrahamic religion out there would've had to admit its flaw. He admitted himself that they couldn't identify a gene.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whitetack)
    if i write a book that says elephants can fly it doesn't make it true now does it
    Well **** sherlock, you've got me there havent you. Thats been said many a time, and been answered many a time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    another fail
    LMAO. Okay il bite, how in the world is it a fail? You cant possibly have faith in the links that person put up?! Research on finding this so called 'gay gene' didnt just start yesterday, if the fruits of that researches labour is a measly link from a site ive never heard of then...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lordoftheties)
    'Tis true, the lad provided many a link. But why waste my time when I know they aren't credible or prove anything? For if they did, the world would've known it by now, and every abrahamic religion out there would've had to admit its flaw. He admitted himself that they couldn't identify a gene.
    What do you consider credible? And well he's providing them because he believes they prove something.

    and well not necessarily. Abrahamic religions aren't particularly well known for admitting flaws.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lordoftheties)
    'Tis true, the lad provided many a link. But why waste my time when I know they aren't credible or prove anything? For if they did, the world would've known it by now, and every abrahamic religion out there would've had to admit its flaw. He admitted himself that they couldn't identify a gene.
    in other words

    lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala lalalalalalitconfusesmebecasue toacceptthiswouldmeangodiswrongl alalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal alalalalalala
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    in other words

    lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala lalalalalalitconfusesmebecasue toacceptthiswouldmeangodiswrongl alalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal alalalalalala
    I will glady take that as you knowing you dun goofed and are now riggling your way out of it, I believe i foreshadowed this in a post like 5 min ago lmaooo
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lordoftheties)
    LMAO. Okay il bite, how in the world is it a fail? You cant possibly have faith in the links that person put up?! Research on finding this so called 'gay gene' didnt just start yesterday, if the fruits of that researches labour is a measly link from a site ive never heard of then...
    you've been given proof but you choose to ignore it so you remain ignorant and still tell the lie to yourself.

    as I said fail
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    What do you consider credible? And well he's providing them because he believes they prove something.

    and well not necessarily. Abrahamic religions aren't particularly well known for admitting flaws.
    He's a member of the ISOC so I think it would need a visit from god and an explanation why he was wrong in the first place
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lordoftheties)
    Im not even gonna bother reading, I already know its ********. If it was proven Id have known by now, lets put it that way. Cue the 'ill take that as a loss' comments roflmao. We all know if I open that link its gonna prove nada.
    And if it was proven that it was a mental defect or a choice, conversion therapies would be legal in the UK and it would be a registered mental illness with the British Psychological Society/Association, but guess what? It's not. You are wrong. Deal with it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lordoftheties)
    'Tis true, the lad provided many a link. But why waste my time when I know they aren't credible or prove anything? For if they did, the world would've known it by now, and every abrahamic religion out there would've had to admit its flaw. He admitted himself that they couldn't identify a gene.
    And how do you work that one out? If that were the case, the West and the East would be on the same page; they're not. Three guesses as to why.

    (Original post by lordoftheties)
    I will glady take that as you knowing you dun goofed and are now riggling your way out of it, I believe i foreshadowed this in a post like 5 min ago lmaooo
    Actually, that is exactly how you are behaving and coming across. You cannot deal with the fact that:

    a). Research has been going on for years on the 'gay gene';
    b). The most highly respected psychological and medical authorities in the world have concluded that homosexuality is neither a mental disorder, nor a choice;
    c). That although nothing is 100% certain yet, all evidence points towards the argument you so ardently disagree with.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    you've been given proof but you choose to ignore it so you remain ignorant and still tell the lie to yourself.

    as I said fail
    No I haven't been shown proof. I guarantee you havent even read it either. IF THAT WAS PROOF, IT WOULD BE IN EVERY MEDICAL BOOK AND EVERY SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL AND EVERY NEWS STATION AND EVERY LIBRARY AND EVERY AND ANY TYPE OF ACADEMIC JOURNAL.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I agree. Most religions are ******** and just want to take advantage of the law and say 'God told me to do it' or some crap like that.
    There is absolutely nothing wrong with gay couples. I think it's quite cute, although not one myself.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lordoftheties)
    Well **** sherlock, you've got me there havent you. Thats been said many a time, and been answered many a time.
    but not this time, i see
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lordoftheties)
    No I haven't been shown proof. I guarantee you havent even read it either. IF THAT WAS PROOF, IT WOULD BE IN EVERY MEDICAL BOOK AND EVERY SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL AND EVERY NEWS STATION AND EVERY LIBRARY AND EVERY AND ANY TYPE OF ACADEMIC JOURNAL.
    I see the proof around me in my friends and family members who are gay

    Not one made the choice just like the gay Muslims I know non of them choose to be gay.

    But as you are not getting shout I can see no matter what proof you are given your belief in your god will override the evidence
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lordoftheties)
    No I haven't been shown proof. I guarantee you havent even read it either. IF THAT WAS PROOF, IT WOULD BE IN EVERY MEDICAL BOOK AND EVERY SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL AND EVERY NEWS STATION AND EVERY LIBRARY AND EVERY AND ANY TYPE OF ACADEMIC JOURNAL.
    No, because that isn't the way the world works. Science develops and progresses by putting forward a hypothesis and allowing it to be falsified. In this case, the evidence strongly concludes that homosexuality is unlikely to be a choice and is not a mental defect. That does not mean they know for sure what it is exactly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lordoftheties)
    No I haven't been shown proof. I guarantee you havent even read it either. IF THAT WAS PROOF, IT WOULD BE IN EVERY MEDICAL BOOK AND EVERY SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL AND EVERY NEWS STATION AND EVERY LIBRARY AND EVERY AND ANY TYPE OF ACADEMIC JOURNAL.
    That's not how science works. At all.
    There is no absolute proof, but there is very good evidence.
    The evidence for it being genetic is stronger, more abundant and more conclusive than the evidence for it being otherwise.

    Many species have homosexual members. It is, by very definition of the word, natural. Furthermore, if it is observed as a predisposition in other species, it is very likely genetic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Love how this was supposed to be a thread about reasons other than religion, but islamaphobia from one member prevailed enough to flop the thread...are y'all are just a buncha h8ers
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lordoftheties)
    Love how this was supposed to be a thread about reasons other than religion, but islamaphobia from one member prevailed enough to flop the thread...are y'all are just a buncha h8ers
    No, I'm sorry, my best friend is a Muslim and I stand up for intolerance towards Muslims but you've behaved like an obnoxious idiot. You have the audacity to call us haters when you have hated on an entire minority group because of your beliefs about clouds and floating spirits within them. Grow up and practice what you preach.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhisperingTide)
    That's not how science works. At all.
    There is no absolute proof, but there is very good evidence.
    The evidence for it being genetic is stronger, more abundant and more conclusive than the evidence for it being otherwise.

    Many species have homosexual members. It is, by very definition of the word, natural. Furthermore, if it is observed as a predisposition in other species, it is very likely genetic.
    smh your ignorance amazes me. If that evidence was so strong, it wouldve been published in every academic journal etc. But its not, so it will stay there on that site rotting away.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lordoftheties)
    Being Muslim is natural according to Islam; everyone is born a Muslim, hence why converts are said to 'revert' back to the religion. Besides that, out of respect to you, I'd certainly stop doing those things that aren't compulsory when around your siblings etc, but I wouldn't stop praying even if around them - and I cant imagine a situation where I would be praying around them. The argument that being gay is a genetic case is preposterous, its been used a gazillion times by a gazillion pro-gays, but when you ask for proof they somehow riggle out of it. Simply put, if its genetic, point me to the gene that holds it.
    This gets beyond boring debating this.
    Well, here we go...

    1a) Being religious is not natural, because being religious requires human interference / intervention.
    1b) Homosexuality is natural, because homosexuality occurs without human interference / invention.
    This is further supported by the fact that other animals have displayed homosexual tendencies without human interference like pollution, splicing, deforestation and so on and so forth.
    1b) Why do you appeal to nature? (i.e. why do you think natural is better and unnatural or artificial is worse?)
    1c) Why the hypocrisy? As you appeal to nature, if you don't believe cannibalism and rape can be good, and charitable work and hospitals are bad, you're hypocritical.

    2a) There isn't an argument that being gay is genetic; there is an argument that being gay has a genetic factor. The problem with the "gay gene" so often used in the media, is that it's reducing sexual orientation to one factor. And do you really think the spectrum-like quality of sexual orientation would only have one factor? Where would all the variation come from? It's an unlikely scenario I believe.
    There is also reason to believe there are prenatal epigenetic factors. And just because someone is born with it doesn't necessarily mean it's genetic, for this reason.
    2b) Xq28 is one of the two chromosome bands which is significantly linked to male homosexuality. (I'm certain there is another, but I can't remember it.)

    (Original post by lordoftheties)
    Your argument is based entirely on homosexuality being genetic; which it isn't. Being black is genetic, besides, not one single point can be made to suggest being black is a problem.
    It is a fairer statement to say homosexuality is genetic instead of non-genetic, albeit both are incorrect, because people are reducing it / simplifying.

    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Stronger arguments for homosexuality being genetic to a degree, than it not being.



    *******s. You choose your religious affiliation.
    I don't think the majority choose their religious affiliation, although there is a greater degree of choice.

    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Actually, it's entirely natural and is displayed in just about every animal species. Pre-20th century some civilisations actually encouraged it. The Greeks and Romans used to because it meant that soldiers would fight harder in battle to protect their partners.

    As for the increased chance of STDs, that's both true and not true. It depends on the STD. I've got an explanation of it here and I can't be bothered to type much more: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...1#post64495311
    Wouldn't it be STI instead of STD in the case of HIV more likely? I say this because HIV is very often symptom-less for many years, so I wouldn't really call it a disease, as opposed to AIDS. (Working on the premise that diseases are / have symptoms.)

    (Sorry for my semantic nature coming to light. )

    Edit #1: To clarify the infections are the pathogens (bad bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites) and the diseases are the symptoms, so if HIV lacks symptoms, I wouldn't call it an STD.

    Edit #2: for many years*
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.