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

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

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    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.
    But gay people can still give their parents grandchildren. And what about people who are infertile? Where do they fit into your system of banning relationships that can't lead to reproduction?


    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    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.
    So you're happy to ban homosexuality and have people lead unhappy lives because they have to hide a significant part of who they are?

    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Thus I think I have proved my point.
    All you've proven is how bigoted you are


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    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.

    Fair enough

    (Original post by Underscore__)
    But gay people can still give their parents grandchildren. And what about people who are infertile? Where do they fit into your system of banning relationships that can't lead to reproduction?




    So you're happy to ban homosexuality and have people lead unhappy lives because they have to hide a significant part of who they are?



    All you've proven is how bigoted you are


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Tbf he didn't say it was right or wrong, he just said why homosexuality would be banned, I don't think it's necessarily his opinion
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)

    All you've proven is how bigoted you are

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I would say the available evidence, such that it is, would suggest that you are the bigot whereas I was trying to explain how the world is as it is.

    Perhaps at this juncture we need to have in our minds what a bigot is:

    a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions

    From the evidence of your above post I would say you are bigoted towards people who hold a view that parents generally speaking want grand children and thus are not always happy as they might be to see their child enter into a gay marriage.

    I would also, take it further, that as many older women tend to control the administration and backroom functions of most churches at local level I would say, that given enough centuries, churches generally speaking will end up banning gay marriages as a result, most likely, to appease women in their forties and fifties. I say this because in male dominated greco-* culture where Christianity originated a form of homosexuality would appear to be normal behaviour.

    It might well be that, homosexual men, in earlier times were behind some of the socio-political pressure that ended up with women being banned from public life (male only schools might well produce more homosexual behaviour in ancient greece) - it would be interesting to find out the sexual origintation of many of the Taliban's key figures.

    Perhaps there is a "hidden" biological subconscious war going on between gay men and mothers. "The Grand child Wars". In some centuries mothers win and in others gay men win - on a subconscious level (I'm not suggesting that any of this activity is happening consciously .
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    I would say the available evidence, such that it is, would suggest that you are the bigot whereas I was trying to explain how the world is as it is.

    Perhaps at this juncture we need to have in our minds what a bigot is:

    a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions

    From the evidence of your above post I would say you are bigoted towards people who hold a view that parents generally speaking want grand children and thus are not always happy as they might be to see their child enter into a gay marriage.
    Well clearly I'm not because as I explained homosexual couples can have children, so parents wanting grandchildren isn't a reason to ban homosexuality.

    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    I would also, take it further, that as many older women tend to control the administration and backroom functions of most churches at local level I would say, that given enough centuries, churches generally speaking will end up banning gay marriages as a result, most likely, to appease women in their forties and fifties. I say this because in male dominated greco-* culture where Christianity originated a form of homosexuality would appear to be normal behaviour.

    It might well be that, homosexual men, in earlier times were behind some of the socio-political pressure that ended up with women being banned from public life (male only schools might well produce more homosexual behaviour in ancient greece) - it would be interesting to find out the sexual origintation of many of the Taliban's key figures.

    Perhaps there is a "hidden" biological subconscious war going on between gay men and mothers. "The Grand child Wars". In some centuries mothers win and in others gay men win - on a subconscious level (I'm not suggesting that any of this activity is happening consciously .
    This is all just nonsensical rambling




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Well clearly I'm not because as I explained homosexual couples can have children, so parents wanting grandchildren isn't a reason to ban homosexuality.



    This is all just nonsensical rambling




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    a) I think your counter argument does not hold water. Only about 25% of same sex couples have children, where as about 90% of couples that are not same sex have children. You are trying to say the "exception is the rule". In fact the percentage of same sex marriages having children is falling:

    http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.ed...-gay-families/

    b) nonsensical ramblings.
    It is factual that Christianity originated in an openly gay culture - eg greco-* (not gay in our sense, but a form of gay).
    I think you need to read this article before you are so dismissive of others:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homose...ancient_Greece

    It is quite clear to me that mothers would hate this - or at least not be comfortable with it:
    The most common form of same-sex relationships between males in Greece was "paiderastia" meaning "boy love". It was a relationship between an older male and an adolescent youth. A boy was considered a "boy" until he was able to grow a full beard. In Athens the older man was called erastes, he was to educate, protect, love, and provide a role model for his eromenos, whose reward for him lay in his beauty, youth, and promise.

    If you deconstruct the early ancient greek followers of St Paul many of them tend to be women. I guess the church gave them a place to vent their feelings that other places in ancient Greece did not. St Paul, came out against gay sex (of the greek type). This, on face value appeared to be popular with these Greek Women.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    a) I think your counter argument does not hold water. Only about 25% of same sex couples have children, where as about 90% of couples that are not same sex have children. You are trying to say the "exception is the rule". In fact the percentage of same sex marriages having children is falling:

    http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.ed...-gay-families/
    It's not about how many choose to, homosexuals are still capable. If homosexuals choose not to have children it's not necessarily because they're homosexual.

    You also didn't go into what happens with infertile couples, I'd be interested to see how many infertile couples have babies.

    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    b) nonsensical ramblings.
    It is factual that Christianity originated in an openly gay culture - eg greco-* (not gay in our sense, but a form of gay).
    I think you need to read this article before you are so dismissive of others:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homose...ancient_Greece

    It is quite clear to me that mothers would hate this - or at least not be comfortable with it:
    The most common form of same-sex relationships between males in Greece was "paiderastia" meaning "boy love". It was a relationship between an older male and an adolescent youth. A boy was considered a "boy" until he was able to grow a full beard. In Athens the older man was called erastes, he was to educate, protect, love, and provide a role model for his eromenos, whose reward for him lay in his beauty, youth, and promise.

    If you deconstruct the early ancient greek followers of St Paul many of them tend to be women. I guess the church gave them a place to vent their feelings that other places in ancient Greece did not. St Paul, came out against gay sex (of the greek type). This, on face value appeared to be popular with these Greek Women.
    I'm still yet to see the relevance.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    It's not about how many choose to, homosexuals are still capable. If homosexuals choose not to have children it's not necessarily because they're homosexual.

    You also didn't go into what happens with infertile couples, I'd be interested to see how many infertile couples have babies.

    I'm still yet to see the relevance.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Infertility can lead to annullment under certain situations
    http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2014/04/...iage-validity/

    If you read the title its "other than religion what is the reason to ban homosexuality"

    I was explaining the NON religious reasons why religion bans it (eg based on Mothers opinions).
    Now read it again and decide if its relevant:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    It is factual that Christianity originated in an openly gay culture - eg greco-* (not gay in our sense, but a form of gay).I think you need to read this article before you are so dismissive of others:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homose...ancient_Greece

    It is quite clear to me that mothers would hate this - or at least not be comfortable with it:The most common form of same-sex relationships between males in Greece was "paiderastia" meaning "boy love". It was a relationship between an older male and an adolescent youth. A boy was considered a "boy" until he was able to grow a full beard. In Athens the older man was called erastes, he was to educate, protect, love, and provide a role model for his eromenos, whose reward for him lay in his beauty, youth, and promise.

    If you deconstruct the early ancient greek followers of St Paul many of them tend to be women. I guess the church gave them a place to vent their feelings that other places in ancient Greece did not. St Paul, came out against gay sex (of the greek type). This, on face value appeared to be popular with these Greek Women.

    But taking it further, if its still a common gay thing for older men to fall for teenage boys (eg Catholic Priest thing) while their sexuality is still "evolving" (not sure of the right biological term) then I'm not sure this should be allowed as boys do mature at a later date to girls (on average) and thus one can see that lowering the age of consent for gay sex to 16 might be considered a retrogressive law rather than a progressive law.
    It might be harmful to 16 year old boys.
    The West Coast of the USA (possibly in many ways the most radical place on the planet) has 18 as the minimum age for all types of sex. I would say I would tend to agree.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    I can't think of a good one, and yet it is banned throughout the world and there are people in the West who think it should be banned in Western countries.
    Children don't grow up in a proper family?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Which is v dumb
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Simple question.. what is the purpose of sex?
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    Simple question.. what is the purpose of sex?
    Like most things our body does, it serves a number of purposes - pleasure, showing our love of someone and reproduction. Why would your sentient idea of nature have made non-reproductive sex pleasurable and desirable if it only intended sex to be reproductive?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexion)
    I offer my veins up to you
    I prefer to suck from the finger :teehee: This way I can slowly enjoy the taste of the blood
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by asmuse123)
    I think that's called being a vampire
    I guess I qualify to be a vampire as whenever I bleed from my finger, I suck it first
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    The most successful method of Sperm meeting Egg and therefor mos species to survive is due to the sexual feeling - otherwise Sex is pretty pointless right? Animals or people will get this sexual pleasure in any way possible to put it bluntly! But the actual reason and this was done via Natural Selection, Survival of the fittest throughout the amazing Natures design to always find a way for things to work.. like the wind blowing pollen or bees transporting pollen.. also great methods! So the actual purpose of these methods is for life to continue. Everything else to do with Sexual pleasure is pointless, like jumping out of a plane or taking drugs.. not what life intended really!!

    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Like most things our body does, it serves a number of purposes - pleasure, showing our love of someone and reproduction. Why would your sentient idea of nature have made non-reproductive sex pleasurable and desirable if it only intended sex to be reproductive?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    The most successful method of Sperm meeting Egg and therefor mos species to survive is due to the sexual feeling - otherwise Sex is pretty pointless right? Animals or people will get this sexual pleasure in any way possible to put it bluntly! But the actual reason and this was done via Natural Selection, Survival of the fittest throughout the amazing Natures design to always find a way for things to work.. like the wind blowing pollen or bees transporting pollen.. also great methods! So the actual purpose of these methods is for life to continue. Everything else to do with Sexual pleasure is pointless, like jumping out of a plane or taking drugs.. not what life intended really!!
    The core reason for eating and drinking is survival. Yet, we also derive pleasure from eating and drinking different types of food and drink, which in turn makes us happier, contributes to socialising, etc. Eating food for pleasure is pretty "pointless" under your logic, but I doubt many of us would deem it against nature or something which should not be encouraged. Who wants to eat gruel forever? Would you be happy to eat gruel forever (which contained just the necessary nutrients to survive) because eating for pleasure is "not what life intended really"?

    Same-sex pleasure does not lead to life just as straight couples engaging in non-reproductive acts does not lead to life, yet there is nothing wrong with it.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    LOL.. no we eat to survive.. SOLE purpose..

    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    The core reason for eating and drinking is survival. Yet, we also derive pleasure from eating and drinking different types of food and drink, which in turn makes us happier, contributes to socialising, etc. Eating food for pleasure is pretty "pointless" under your logic, but I doubt many of us would deem it against nature or something which should not be encouraged. Who wants to eat gruel forever? Would you be happy to eat gruel forever (which contained just the necessary nutrients to survive) because eating for pleasure is "not what life intended really"?

    Same-sex pleasure does not lead to life just as straight couples engaging in non-reproductive acts does not lead to life, yet there is nothing wrong with it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    LOL.. no we eat to survive.. SOLE purpose..
    Nonsense. If you ate purely to survive you would only eat gruel or some watered-down powder with all the necessary nutrients and vitamins. Why do you have a roast dinner when gruel with nutrients would satisfy your hunger and also be healthier? Why do you have a snack when you have eaten a meal which means that the snack is not necessary for you to survive?

    Have you ever had a desert or snack in the evening when you have already met your healthy calorie intake for the day? If so, you are eating for pleasure, not to survive.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForgetMe)
    I prefer to suck from the finger :teehee: This way I can slowly enjoy the taste of the blood
    Then I offer my fingers up to you, I guess :lol:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Humans, being so intelligent, is what gave us this opportunity to experiment with food. Most species will eat the same foods daily in order to survive.. The fact is that we COULD survive eating the same things daily.. no matter on the taste. Nature only requires us to eat and drink to stay healthy. Just like Sex to reproduce! Survival is all that matters... getting fitter, stronger, bigger, better, etc are just products of survival of the fittest.

    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Nonsense. If you ate purely to survive you would only eat gruel or some watered-down powder with all the necessary nutrients and vitamins. Why do you have a roast dinner when gruel with nutrients would satisfy your hunger and also be healthier? Why do you have a snack when you have eaten a meal which means that the snack is not necessary for you to survive?

    Have you ever had a desert or snack in the evening when you have already met your healthy calorie intake for the day? If so, you are eating for pleasure, not to survive.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    Humans, being so intelligent, is what gave us this opportunity to experiment with food. Most species will eat the same foods daily in order to survive.. The fact is that we COULD survive eating the same things daily.. no matter on the taste. Nature only requires us to eat and drink to stay healthy. Just like Sex to reproduce! Survival is all that matters... getting fitter, stronger, bigger, better, etc are just products of survival of the fittest.
    I am still yet to determine what you are trying to conclude with your arguments here. You've accepted that we eat for pleasure/enjoyment and that we have sex for pleasure/love, so what is your belief about those things - things which don't directly result in "survival" - are they wrong? Unnatural? Should be banned? What is your view on homosexuality in line with the OP?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    My view is that homosexuality is unnatural - in that nature REQUIRES male and females to mate in order to reproduce and species to survive i.e. the intended purpose of sex. Yes there are other methods of sex.. but this does not result in reproduction.

    Now after saying that.. of course people will choose how they prefer to build a relationship with or what food they prefer.. we have a lot of choices in life.. whatever choice makes you happy, that is what matters.

    The OP asked, other than Religion what other reason might we ban homosexuality.. and I said that Nature could be a reason due to sexual reproduction is not possible. I would never actually say that we should ban homosexuality for this reason.. but that it COULD be another reason. I was kinda throwing it in because what other reasons are there?!!

    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    I am still yet to determine what you are trying to conclude with your arguments here. You've accepted that we eat for pleasure/enjoyment and that we have sex for pleasure/love, so what is your belief about those things - things which don't directly result in "survival" - are they wrong? Unnatural? Should be banned? What is your view on homosexuality in line with the OP?
 
 
 
  • 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.