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

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    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.
    Nature does not "require" that or else males and females wouldn't have the option of never reproducing in their entire lifetime, and then there are of course infertile people (which nature also created). This just shows why nature is not sentient and how there is no intelligent design behind it. Why would nature intentionally create infertile people if it also required people to reproduce? It does not make sense.

    So are you saying sexual acts which are not aimed at reproduction are "unnatural"?

    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.
    Good.

    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?!!
    But that logic suggests that there could be a reason to ban all "unnatural" things.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I have already explained this many times.. in order to reproduce (survival) sperm need to get to the egg (male and female sex) any other sexual activity is just a product of sexual organs being used in other ways.. not the INTENDED purpose whether designed or not.. in my opinion nature is designed, however I understand you don't believe this and I accept that.

    OK so now i will explain why BANNING homosexuality due to it's natural intent or natural reason, however you need me to word it. This also brings the Religious element back in.. IN theory, what if 100% all Christians suddenly decided to be homosexual.. it wouldn't take long for Christianity to be wiped out.. the Religions that BAN homosexuality would have a much higher birth rate - due to NATURE - So survival of our species is threatened to some degree.. yes a small degree and to be fair, reducing this is needed in any case!

    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Nature does not "require" that or else males and females wouldn't have the option of never reproducing in their entire lifetime, and then there are of course infertile people (which nature also created). This just shows why nature is not sentient and how there is no intelligent design behind it. Why would nature intentionally create infertile people if it also required people to reproduce? It does not make sense.

    So are you saying sexual acts which are not aimed at reproduction are "unnatural"?



    Good.



    But that logic suggests that there could be a reason to ban all "unnatural" things.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    I have already explained this many times.. in order to reproduce (survival) sperm need to get to the egg (male and female sex) any other sexual activity is just a product of sexual organs being used in other ways.. not the INTENDED purpose whether designed or not.. in my opinion nature is designed, however I understand you don't believe this and I accept that.
    Then I guess most people are guilty of using their bodies in ways not "intended" under your logic, whether engaging in non-reproductive sexual acts or eating food for pleasure.

    As I said, the fact that nature "created" infertile people contradicts your theory.

    OK so now i will explain why BANNING homosexuality due to it's natural intent or natural reason, however you need me to word it. This also brings the Religious element back in.. IN theory, what if 100% all Christians suddenly decided to be homosexual.. it wouldn't take long for Christianity to be wiped out.. the Religions that BAN homosexuality would have a much higher birth rate - due to NATURE - So survival of our species is threatened to some degree.. yes a small degree and to be fair, reducing this is needed in any case!
    People can convert to religion. Also there is no evidence the survival of our species would be threatened, given that homosexuality has never made up more than 10% of societies in which it has existed.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Over 6 billion people on the planet supports my theory! The only way to procreate is if a sperm meets egg.. I can't explain it any easier.. this is the reason for sex in nature. It doesn't matter about anything else.. it's unfortunate for some people who are infertile but this is irrelevant! Clutching at straws won't change my theory.

    My THEORY of 100% of a certain religion or race even to decide to be homosexual would threaten the existence of that religion or race.. so translate to 10% and the same logic applies.. it has certainly become a lot more accepted in the last 10 years.. and will continue to do so so what's 10% now could soon become 20% and so on.. therefor an actual threat to the group who do not ban homosexuality.

    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Then I guess most people are guilty of using their bodies in ways not "intended" under your logic, whether engaging in non-reproductive sexual acts or eating food for pleasure.

    As I said, the fact that nature "created" infertile people contradicts your theory.



    People can convert to religion. Also there is no evidence the survival of our species would be threatened, given that homosexuality has never made up more than 10% of societies in which it has existed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    Over 6 billion people on the planet supports my theory! The only way to procreate is if a sperm meets egg.. I can't explain it any easier.. this is the reason for sex in nature. It doesn't matter about anything else.. it's unfortunate for some people who are infertile but this is irrelevant! Clutching at straws won't change my theory.
    It's not irrelevant because it contradicts your entire theory. You are suggesting nature is sentient and designs life in someway. If this is the case and nature "intended" humans to reproduce, then why did it also create infertility?

    My THEORY of 100% of a certain religion or race even to decide to be homosexual would threaten the existence of that religion or race..
    That's essentially an impossible hypothetical. If 100% of people decided not to have children then the same thing would happen. Is that a reason to force people to reproduce or punish those who decide not to have children?

    Also, homosexuality is not a choice.

    it has certainly become a lot more accepted in the last 10 years.. and will continue to do so so what's 10% now could soon become 20% and so on.. therefor an actual threat to the group who do not ban homosexuality.
    Again a hypothetical not supported by evidence.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Everything in life is a choice.. if we prefer something then surely we make that choice.. choices can change throughout your life.

    Yes people do choose to have children or not.. China are forced to have 1 child..

    Don't need evidence to support a theory.. the fact is it is possible no matter the odds..

    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    It's not irrelevant because it contradicts your entire theory. You are suggesting nature is sentient and designs life in someway. If this is the case and nature "intended" humans to reproduce, then why did it also create infertility?

    That's essentially an impossible hypothetical. If 100% of people decided not to have children then the same thing would happen. Is that a reason to force people to reproduce or punish those who decide not to have children?

    Also, homosexuality is not a choice.



    Again a hypothetical not supported by evidence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    Everything in life is a choice.. if we prefer something then surely we make that choice.. choices can change throughout your life.
    Homosexuality is not a choice given that most gay people cannot choose whether or not they are attracted to or become sexually aroused by members of the same sex.

    Yes people do choose to have children or not.. China are forced to have 1 child..
    The one child policy is a limit on how many children they can have, not forcing them to actively have one child...

    Don't need evidence to support a theory.. the fact is it is possible no matter the odds..
    You do if you want it to be taken seriously. Anyway, it's a ridiculous theory which is about as possible as 100% of people choosing not to have kids. It's certainly not a sensible basis on which to choose whether to ban things or not.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    It is a choice even if you do not find it appealing. Many straight people who have been in relationships start a homosexual relationship.. you would declare this as bi-sexual no doubt, but this isn't the case for some.

    My China quote regarding one child I presumed wouldn't need explaining.. let's not get silly.. they are forced to have no more than 1 child thus yes they are being punished.

    It is a theory.. that eventually could start to have an impact over time..

    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Homosexuality is not a choice given that most gay people cannot choose whether or not they are attracted to or become sexually aroused by members of the same sex.



    The one child policy is a limit on how many children they can have, not forcing them to actively have one child...



    You do if you want it to be taken seriously. Anyway, it's a ridiculous theory which is about as possible as 100% of people choosing not to have kids. It's certainly not a sensible basis on which to choose whether to ban things or not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    It is a choice even if you do not find it appealing.
    Citation needed.

    Many straight people who have been in relationships start a homosexual relationship.. you would declare this as bi-sexual no doubt, but this isn't the case for some.
    Yes, I would declare that bisexual; sexuality is a scale.

    My China quote regarding one child I presumed wouldn't need explaining.. let's not get silly.. they are forced to have no more than 1 child thus yes they are being punished.
    On the basis of the very real and documented overpopulation in China, rather than on the basis of some hypothetical theory with no supporting evidence.

    It is a theory.. that eventually could start to have an impact over time..
    As I said, it is about as valid as the theory that 100% of people could choose not to have kids. There is no evidence for it. Do you really want our governments to start basing decisions to ban things on hypothetical theories backed with no supporting evidence?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Citation lol.. I agree it isn't a fair choice to give somebody but it is a choice.. and a choice many make the most of

    China is over populated I agree and a sensible decision but they are still being punished.. who knows what will happen in the future.

    Anyway this is getting pointless..

    Nature is my reason.. and the POSSIBLE threat to a group in comparison to another group

    Nothing would surprise me when it comes to what the people in power want to achieve.. another topic though.

    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Citation needed.



    Yes, I would declare that bisexual; sexuality is a scale.



    On the basis of the very real and documented overpopulation in China, rather than on the basis of some hypothetical theory with no supporting evidence.



    As I said, it is about as valid as the theory that 100% of people could choose not to have kids. There is no evidence for it. Do you really want our governments to start basing decisions to ban things on hypothetical theories backed with no supporting evidence?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    Citation lol.. I agree it isn't a fair choice to give somebody but it is a choice.. and a choice many make the most of

    China is over populated I agree and a sensible decision but they are still being punished.. who knows what will happen in the future.

    Anyway this is getting pointless..

    Nature is my reason.. and the POSSIBLE threat to a group in comparison to another group

    Nothing would surprise me when it comes to what the people in power want to achieve.. another topic though.
    You've not provided evidence for your arguments, and your theories are remote and hypothetical. I think most people won't be persuaded that what you have suggested are credible or sensible reasons for banning homosexuality.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Well it was only a suggestion, take it or leave it
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    You've not provided evidence for your arguments, and your theories are remote and hypothetical. I think most people won't be persuaded that what you have suggested are credible or sensible reasons for banning homosexuality.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexion)
    Then I offer my fingers up to you, I guess :lol:
    Good boy, I'll start off with a thumb, I like it thick :sexface:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Orion_)
    Nor is religion

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I've been waiting to post this for a while now

    People seem to be under the impression that all Christians disapprove of homosexuality or that if it were not for religion homophobia would be almost non-existent (I'm not really sure how true this). I am a Christian. However, please do not automatically think that I hate homosexuals. In fact, the opposite is true. I have many homosexuals friends and I do not think that them being homosexual is unnatural because, presumably, one can neither change nor control their sexual orientation - again I could be wrong.

    OP, thank you very much for this rather interesting this thread. I have enjoyed reading such a wide range of diverse opinions (which makes a change).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meme-chan2)
    I've been waiting to post this for a while now

    People seem to be under the impression that all Christians disapprove of homosexuality or that if it were not for religion homophobia would be almost non-existent (I'm not really sure how true this). I am a Christian. However, please do not automatically think that I hate homsexuals. In fact, the opposite is true. I have many homosexuals friends and I do not think that them being homosexual is unnatural because, presumably, one can neither change nor control their sexual orientation - again I could be wrong.

    OP, thank you very much for this rather interesting this thread. I have enjoyed reading such a wide range of diverse opinions (which makes change).
    Sorry, Orion. This wasn't aimed at you.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    As there's 24 pages of posts I can only assume this has been said already but

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Because it would make the sex and hooking up so much more exciting
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moggis)
    As there's 24 pages of posts I can only assume this has been said already but
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Because it would make the sex and hooking up so much more exciting
    Haha, ok
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForgetMe)
    Good boy, I'll start off with a thumb, I like it thick :sexface:
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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.