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

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

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    Nature is designed in a way to allow life to keep existing no matter how and it works extremely well hence the vast amount of life today! When it comes to animals then in the majority of cases nature requires male and females to mate, hence my conclusion of another reason being Nature.

    If other species partake in sex with the same sex then this is simply sexual pleasure and an example is your dog humping your leg or a rabbit humping a cover.. simply just sexual relief in any means possible!

    SO I will say again, that nature intended opposite sex interaction..
    Nature does not intend anything. Never did, never will. Intention implies the presence of an intelligent designer. I doubt anyone here is a creationist....



    epage I'd like to see where you're coming from but I dont see anything wrong with Milos views. They're perfectly reasonable. I DO NOT agree with Milo on a lot of things, but the problem is that we are literally in need of people like Milo to stand up against the PC cultural marxism that's eating up the west from within. It is literally the most dangerous movement since Fascism and Communism in the 30's and 40's.

    Im sure we can agree on that?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    "Nature does not intend anything. Never did, never will. Intention implies the presence of an intelligent designer. I doubt anyone here is a creationist...."

    Yes it does.. always has.. otherwise nothing would exist!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galaxie501)
    Nature does not intend anything. Never did, never will. Intention implies the presence of an intelligent designer. I doubt anyone here is a creationist....



    epage I'd like to see where you're coming from but I dont see anything wrong with Milos views. They're perfectly reasonable. I DO NOT agree with Milo on a lot of things, but the problem is that we are literally in need of people like Milo to stand up against the PC cultural marxism that's eating up the west from within. It is literally the most dangerous movement since Fascism and Communism in the 30's and 40's.

    Im sure we can agree on that?
    I can agree that we do need a variety of conflicting opinions in society. Thats important. I also believe that people have the right to say what they want and censorship isn't okay if it is not abusing, hurting or targeting someone specifically. I do not believe that 'PC cultural marxism' is dangerous for society. It's important to have change and after hundreds years of capitalism and conservatism it is good to have other political beliefs in western society.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by epage)
    I can agree that we do need a variety of conflicting opinions in society. Thats important. I also believe that people have the right to say what they want and censorship isn't okay if it is not abusing, hurting or targeting someone specifically. I do not believe that 'PC cultural marxism' is dangerous for society. It's important to have change and after hundreds years of capitalism and conservatism it is good to have other political beliefs in western society.
    No doubt about that. The problem is just that one side actively sabotages free speech and discussion, crippling debate.

    Hint: Its not the big bad mean conservatives this time.






    PS: Europe hasnt seen real conservatism for over 70 years, so thats a thing of the past anyway.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OGGUS)
    Well the definition of sex... Let's say condoms weren't invented then...
    still applies not all sex results in pregnancy and not all straight couples can conceive so further making the point irrelevant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    still applies not all sex results in pregnancy and not all straight couples can conceive so further making the point irrelevant
    Why you gotta be rude for... It's for people who want to have children. Like most women nowadays are nasty. They need help. There are nice ones out there obviously, my mother. I'm defintely having children. And I think that people do have a right to have children.
    Furthermore, I have heard that some men want to have children without a surrogate, which I think is good, I have researched this topic indetail. Don't ask me for details I have exams.
    But I liked your response. Thanks
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    Nature is designed in a way to allow life to keep existing no matter how and it works extremely well hence the vast amount of life today! When it comes to animals then in the majority of cases nature requires male and females to mate, hence my conclusion of another reason being Nature.

    If other species partake in sex with the same sex then this is simply sexual pleasure and an example is your dog humping your leg or a rabbit humping a cover.. simply just sexual relief in any means possible!

    SO I will say again, that nature intended opposite sex interaction..
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    "Nature does not intend anything. Never did, never will. Intention implies the presence of an intelligent designer. I doubt anyone here is a creationist...."

    Yes it does.. always has.. otherwise nothing would exist!
    Wow, you clearly know best, out of the two conflicting identities in your head, stupid #1 and stupid #2.

    "Nature" is not designed; nature is just the tendencies of things without human interference or intervention.

    Things that self-perpetuate / propagate tend to survive, while those that don't tend to die out, hence the status-quo.

    Nature requires nothing.
    It's only that a man ejaculating inside a woman's vagina greatly increases the chance of insemination, then reproduction. This would have taken a long time to reach this point, because of each mutation / mutations that offered a selective advantage occurs over time.

    Sexual pleasure increases the chance of insemination & so reproduction, because it inclines you to have / seek out sex.

    These are just selective advantages in natural selection.

    Nature intended nothing, because nature has no intent / intentionality / purpose / design.

    Intention requires sentience.
    Nature has no sentience; it is tendencies.

    Anyway why should nature have authority over your life? Nature can be as brutal as it can seem sweet. It's often ruthless, epitomising "survival of the fittest". It uses a scalpel against those less fortunate.

    So stop idolising it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    No. Just, no. This does not even validate your ridiculous assertion.
    writing silly labels and saying "no" doesn't make you right, it just makes your counter claim appear to be non-existent.

    It does not matter, I suspect you and everyone knows the validity of the pain parents can feel when they know that they will not be grand parents.

    Its bitter sweet because its parents who normally pay for the bulk of the wedding.

    Paying for it would be like paying for no grand children to be "set in stone", it would not necessarily be the happy day for them that it would normally be.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    writing silly labels and saying "no" doesn't make you right, it just makes your counter claim appear to be non-existent.

    It does not matter, I suspect you and everyone knows the validity of the pain parents can feel when they know that they will not be grand parents.

    Its bitter sweet because its parents who normally pay for the bulk of the wedding.

    Paying for it would be like paying for no grand children to be "set in stone", it would not necessarily be the happy day for them that it would normally be.
    The fact you're trying to quantify this subjective and random scenario is funny.


    Those parents are selfish idiots.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galaxie501)
    Homosexuals should not adopt children in my view however UNLESS there are no other people volunteering for a adoption - simply due to the fact that children need a father and a mother.


    (Come at me SJW's)
    Not necessarily. Children need two loving parents. So if two gay parents can provide for their adopted children emotionally and physically what is the problem?

    Also, many people including me grew up in a single parent household.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)

    It does not matter, I suspect you and everyone knows the validity of the pain parents can feel when they know that they will not be grand parents.

    Its bitter sweet because its parents who normally pay for the bulk of the wedding.

    Paying for it would be like paying for no grand children to be "set in stone", it would not necessarily be the happy day for them that it would normally be.
    1. I probably wouldn't have children even if I could have them biologically with a partner. My goals are for my career and I'm pretty sure my parents would rather I was successful and happy than having children.

    2. If I wanted children, I could adopt? Foster? Have AID? So my parents would have grandchildren then and your argument is irrelevant.

    3. Are you seriously saying my parents will not be happy on my wedding day? Because they believe I'm not going to give them grandchildren? I really don't think they'd care on my wedding day. I think they'd just want to see me happy.

    4. My parents did not have me just for the prospect of grandchildren. They had me because they wanted me. They wanted a child. They want that child to be happy.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OGGUS)
    Why you gotta be rude for... It's for people who want to have children. Like most women nowadays are nasty. They need help. There are nice ones out there obviously, my mother. I'm defintely having children. And I think that people do have a right to have children.
    Furthermore, I have heard that some men want to have children without a surrogate, which I think is good, I have researched this topic indetail. Don't ask me for details I have exams.
    But I liked your response. Thanks
    little to do with the issue I raised just an odd rant
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Without Nature.. nothing would be here, so no matter how cruel.. this design is working very well indeed, even against the odds. Just because you can not comprehend that some form of blueprint exists in everything.. i.e DNA is therefor the design or a set of commands that get passed down to the offspring.. although the blueprints where not created by humans, they are created by nature. This design works in a way that lifeforms not only survive but they flourish and get stronger, bigger, better, due to the "survival of the fittest" method. With only the strongest (luckiest) surviving and pro-creating and with the ability to self improve to gain an advantage in a given environment (luck) it is inevitable that living things will keep improving over time.

    I understand what you mean by there being no creator.. hence nobody designed anything, I am not being stupid in thinking God exists for example.. but some form of design is in place on a level we can not understand.

    A bunch of chemicals don't just exist.. and when certain chemicals combine more chemicals are created! Something must have been there in the 1st place.. something can't exist from nothing! The ultimate question i guess!

    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Wow, you clearly know best, out of the two conflicting identities in your head, stupid #1 and stupid #2.

    "Nature" is not designed; nature is just the tendencies of things without human interference or intervention.

    Things that self-perpetuate / propagate tend to survive, while those that don't tend to die out, hence the status-quo.

    Nature requires nothing.
    It's only that a man ejaculating inside a woman's vagina greatly increases the chance of insemination, then reproduction. This would have taken a long time to reach this point, because of each mutation / mutations that offered a selective advantage occurs over time.

    Sexual pleasure increases the chance of insemination & so reproduction, because it inclines you to have / seek out sex.

    These are just selective advantages in natural selection.

    Nature intended nothing, because nature has no intent / intentionality / purpose / design.

    Intention requires sentience.
    Nature has no sentience; it is tendencies.

    Anyway why should nature have authority over your life? Nature can be as brutal as it can seem sweet. It's often ruthless, epitomising "survival of the fittest". It uses a scalpel against those less fortunate.

    So stop idolising it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Also i want to explain this further so you understand "SO I will say again, that nature intended opposite sex interaction.."

    Lets assume nature does have a design even though you don't agree, humor me for a bit! The ONLY way to pro-create (the reason we are here) is for a specific event to happen. This event almost always occurs between a male and female interaction in animals at least. Hence my statement, that it is natural for this to happen due to the required result..

    The intended event might be pure coincidence and I understand it might not have been designed and lucky for every living thing this coincidence occurs.. still the purpose (intended or not) of sex is to reproduce and nature created this in either case.

    So when we talk about homosexuality in animals then this is purely a sexual thing and not what nature requires in order to reproduce (the purpose)
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    little to do with the issue I raised just an odd rant
    Take it how you will
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    No. Just, no. This does not even validate your ridiculous assertion.
    Not sure what happened there - I thought I replied, either it was removed or I forget to press the "submit" button.

    As I mentioned earlier, mothers in particular want grandchildren (I provided links). It is parents that often pay a big slab of the marriage service and indeed sometimes a deposit on the marital home.

    Paying for a gay marriage, would potentially almost feel like paying not to have grandchildren (it puts a quasi-official zeal on it).

    So I can see why parents, would tend not to always be in favour it.

    I don't see what this has to do with your phrase "validate your rediculous assertion" - It just seems like words to me without meaning. Sorry. Can you explain what you mean?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by epage)

    4. My parents did not have me just for the prospect of grandchildren. They had me because they wanted me. They wanted a child. They want that child to be happy.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    From the web, I suggest you read it

    http://grandparents.about.com/od/gra...ndchildren.htm
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    Also i want to explain this further so you understand "SO I will say again, that nature intended opposite sex interaction.."

    Lets assume nature does have a design even though you don't agree, humor me for a bit! The ONLY way to pro-create (the reason we are here) is for a specific event to happen. This event almost always occurs between a male and female interaction in animals at least. Hence my statement, that it is natural for this to happen due to the required result..

    The intended event might be pure coincidence and I understand it might not have been designed and lucky for every living thing this coincidence occurs.. still the purpose (intended or not) of sex is to reproduce and nature created this in either case.

    So when we talk about homosexuality in animals then this is purely a sexual thing and not what nature requires in order to reproduce (the purpose)
    So why did nature "create" non-reproductive sexual pleasure, which both straight and gay couples enjoy? If nature "intended" reproductive sex, then it must have "intended" non-reproductive sex too.

    So what if homosexuality in animals is not aimed at reproduction? Are you suggesting it is unnatural, despite your sentient idea of nature having designed it?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    From the web, I suggest you read it

    http://grandparents.about.com/od/gra...ndchildren.htm
    Well, life is unfair in that you can't always get what you want.
    Banning homosexuality will not make gay people straight because that's who they are, so no use really whinging about the fact you won't have grandchildren (which is not necessarily true) because of that as there's not much you can do about it.
    I'm sure you're aware life is not one big fairytale; you wanted things you can't have, same for everyone
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyle1198)
    Well, life is unfair in that you can't always get what you want.
    Banning homosexuality will not make gay people straight because that's who they are, so no use really whinging about the fact you won't have grandchildren (which is not necessarily true) because of that as there's not much you can do about it.
    I'm sure you're aware life is not one big fairytale; you wanted things you can't have, same for everyone
    The point is not about morality or ethics of homosexuality, but rather why are some against it/ban it. I'm saying the biggest group who are probably the "quiet majority" are parents who want grand children.


    Not saying they are right or wrong, I'm just replying to the question.

    Clearly banning it does not make people not gay but there is clear evidence to suggest if there is a great deal of social pressure to get married and have babies, more gay people get married and have babies.

    Thus I think I have proved my point.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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

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