Turn on thread page Beta

Sodemy/Homosexuality - natural or not watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Depends how likely these health risks are. If you didn't do anything that posed a risk of some sort I'd imagine you'd be mentally unstable. The health militance side fails for me. Too many drunks and fatties!
    Well yes, I agree - it's necessary to find a balance between making sure you're not risking your health, and not cutting enjoyment out of your life. Different people are going to have different opinions about where to draw the line.

    Although I suppose it could also be argued that, unless two people are entirely certain that they will only ever be with each other for the rest of their lives, it is facilitating the spread of potentially lethal diseases to other people as well - in which case, it isn't just about your own opinion on where to find the balance between health and enjoyment, but also about consideration of the bigger picture, and the effect of your behaviour on others.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Hmm... debatable.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex#Health_risks
    By that same proposition we should legislate against the eating of McDonalds due to the coronary health risks of junk food. And moreover, even if the chance of HIV increases, so long as both consensual parties are aware of this, surely they are fine to carry on.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spanishdream)
    At what point did I say it was wrong? :p:
    well why did you raise the point if you don't think it's a problem then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by speedbird)
    Well, a lot of people are wrong. Again: "The answer from research is clear: sexual and gender identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same way among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers (...) Once more, evidence indicates that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with their peers and adults. The picture that emerges from this research shows that children of gay and lesbian parents enjoy a social life that is typical of their age group in terms of involvement with peers, parents, family members, and friends." (APA)
    If that's the case, then I'm happy it's like that because I would hate to see adopted child being bullied because his/her foster parents are homosexual. Every child needs a home.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Turin Turambar)
    So love is merely needy-ness? There is a failure here to distuinguish between erotic and emotional desire.

    Also, there is nothing to suggest why the needs for love, attachment, and intimacy are fulfilled by homosexual acts.

    According to this definition, sexuality is a result of recieving attention, which pays into the hands of those who say that homosexuals are predators who "recruit" or "convert" rather than homosexuality being a means to fulfill erotic desire.



    ^^Just like any platonic relationship.^^
    Why do you think that the non-sexual aspects of a relationship between a gay couple differ to that of a straight one? In my view, the don't because both parties want the same things; friendship/compassion/shared experiences/mutual love for one another etc...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edanon)
    well why did you raise the point if you don't think it's a problem then?
    Because it's something that people talk about and debate?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Although I suppose it could also be argued that, unless two people are entirely certain that they will only ever be with each other for the rest of their lives, it is facilitating the spread of potentially lethal diseases to other people as well.
    Well, in English law you can recklessly transmit HIV during sex. Although I do wonder what the verdict of the landmark case would be had the perpetrator been a homosexual male (Dica). Similarly, my brother had a friend who was a CF sufferer. Why did he get it? Because both his parents had the condition and they knew the consequences of having a child.

    It's partly why I don't bother with the blood service. You can get up to all sort of activities as a heterosexual, with as many different partners as you want. But if you're a monogamous homosexual male and had protected sex then you're barred from donating. At least that's what I concluded from the test a few years ago.

    Few people are together as couples for the whole of their lives...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    Why do you think that the non-sexual aspects of a relationship between a gay couple differ to that of a straight one?
    Because a heterosexual relationship is there to fulfil the inherent desire to pro-create and carry on the genes. Such a relationship stimulates gender specific parental instincts.

    A homosexual relationship is a union between two peers whereas the heterosexual relationship the two are unequal, one is male (father) and one is female(mother).

    Genders have different roles to play both genetically and psychologically.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    By that same proposition we should legislate against the eating of McDonalds due to the coronary health risks of junk food.
    What has legislation got to do with it? I'd advise against the eating of such junk, with or without legislation. Of course, if people want to poison themselves (bit of an exaggeration, I know!) it's up to them - but that doesn't make it a good thing to do...

    And moreover, even if the chance of HIV increases, so long as both consensual parties are aware of this, surely they are fine to carry on.
    "Fine to carry on" in what sense? Legally, people can do pretty much whatever they want with themselves - but whether it's advisable as a lifestyle or not is another issue.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Turin Turambar)
    So love is merely needy-ness? There is a failure here to distuinguish between erotic and emotional desire.
    There is no need. Gay people have emotional, romantic and sexual attractions to people their own gender. There's more to being gay than just having anal sex. In actuality a lot of gay men choose not to have anal sex.

    Also, there is nothing to suggest why the needs for love, attachment, and intimacy are fulfilled by homosexual acts.
    Well, because they are, obviously. Let me explain it to you Sesame Street style: You love someone, that person loves you back. Need for love: fulfilled.

    According to this definition, sexuality is a result of recieving attention, which pays into the hands of those who say that homosexuals are predators who "recruit" or "convert" rather than homosexuality being a means to fulfill erotic desire.
    Nonsense. Firstly, this doesn't follow from the definition and secondly your argument is fatally flawed. And lastly, sexual orientation cannot be changed so there's no way someone could be converted into homosexuality.

    ^^Just like any platonic relationship.^^
    And this is simply immaterial and has absolutely nothing to do with the matter in hand.
    Sigh
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Turin Turambar)
    Because a heterosexual relationship is there to fulfil the inherent desire to pro-create and carry on the genes. Such a relationship stimulates gender specific parental instincts.

    A homosexual relationship is a union between two peers whereas the heterosexual relationship the two are unequal, one is male (father) and one is female(mother).

    Genders have different roles to play both genetically and psychologically.
    Please do explain why then some couples chose not to have children (given the parental instincts you allude to).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    What has legislation got to do with it? I'd advise against the eating of such junk, with or without legislation. Of course, if people want to poison themselves (bit of an exaggeration, I know!) it's up to them - but that doesn't make it a good thing to do...



    "Fine to carry on" in what sense? Legally, people can do pretty much whatever they want with themselves - but whether it's advisable as a lifestyle or not is another issue.
    Hang on. We're arguing the same things however I'm just tired. Soz for any confusion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    Please do explain why then some couples chose not to have children (given the parental instincts you allude to).

    Socio-economic reasons.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Although I suppose it could also be argued that, unless two people are entirely certain that they will only ever be with each other for the rest of their lives, it is facilitating the spread of potentially lethal diseases to other people as well.
    Yeah, or you can just use a condom :rolleyes:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spanishdream)
    Because it's something that people talk about and debate?
    Thats fair enough... but if you're not coming at it from a moral standpoint then it's not really relevant to the thread.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    OP your neck is so red... ummm... something... well you're a redneck, that's basically what i wanted to say.

    My religion forbids homosexuality and i completely support that but im not going to judge gay people or discriminate against them, but i do think it's wrong. don't give me "ooh they're born that way" im just giving my opinion like everyone else, calm down.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Turin Turambar)
    Socio-economic reasons.
    Many couples chose not to have children purely because they do not want to have them, as opposed to being due to financial/job opportunity reasons. This invalidates your claim.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Turin Turambar)
    Socio-economic reasons.
    Richer people have fewer children. Fact. And besides, what you've said implies that after a heterosexual couple has had children, their relationship becomes no more than a sexual, mechanical relationship which, I'm sorry, is utter nonsense. You only need to ask your grandparents, women who get married at 50+, infertile couples, et cetera.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jelkin)
    If being gay is so unnatural, why are there gay animals? And why is prostate stimulation pleasurable?

    Why is something "wrong" just because it's unnatural? Think of all the "unnatural" things in your life, like driving a car.

    By the way, before "gay" meant "happy" it was a word meaning a children's picture or toy. Word definitions change. No one accuses toilets of having "stolen" the word that originally meant a woman's dresser.

    "It is even defined as 'unnatural'" - uh, by whom? You?

    well said :yep:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edanon)
    Thats fair enough... but if you're not coming at it from a moral standpoint then it's not really relevant to the thread.
    The moderator asked a question and I answered it as a potential negative point that someone could pick from homosexuality.

    How is that not relevant? Are you the police of the forum are you, telling me my post isn't relative? :goaway:
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

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.