Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    How do you know incest is not a form of sexuality? I reject the soundness of your premise that incest has nothing to do with sexuality, as it is a form of sexuality itself. Just as someone may only be attracted to those of the same sex, some people may only be attracted to people related to them.
    Sexuality/sexual orientation is based on gender, by it's current definition, so incest isn't an orientation. Case in point, if someone is only attracted to brunettes, should that also be classed as a sexuality? I think most would say no, as that would also be superseded by their gender preference, or lack thereof.

    Whether it's a sexuality, however, doesn't actually have any bearing on your argument, as it doesn't relate to the morality of homosexuality in the slightest.
    • Section Leader
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    How do you know incest is not a form of sexuality? I reject the soundness of your premise that incest has nothing to do with sexuality, as it is a form of sexuality itself. Just as someone may only be attracted to those of the same sex, some people may only be attracted to people related to them.
    You've just broken down your own argument and answered your own question. Incest is it's own sexuality/desire - just like homo is nothing to do with hetro, incest is nothing to do with homosexuality. It's like saying those who are into BDSM or other fetishes, this occurs in all sexuality and isn't tied to just one.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    The United Kingdom over the years has been invaded by: Normans, Romans, Vikings, Celts, and many more; each left their mark on our traditions. So Roman traditions are also our traditions.
    Tell me, when was it the case that Roman culture caused Britain to be obsessed with homosexual sex?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    You realise that's not an argument against homosexuality, right? It's just a tangent to the topic at hand. We can spin it whichever way you want though, really. I specified that the relationship shouldn't harm anyone if it were to be acceptable, so the risk put on any offspring from an incestual couple would fall under that, no?

    But if it's not causing harm to anyone, it's not technically bad. Whilst I don't personally support it, there's not an inherent moral argument against it. It's also not a sexuality, and therefore not directly comparable.

    More to the point, this is an argument specifically about LGBT+ relationships, which you have yet to put a new argument against.
    This is about the education of LGBT relationships. What I am arguing is that there is no need to educate children about these relationships that in many cases result in no reproduction. We should not promoting these relationships to young children, lest more of them opt for not reproducing when they grow up, which by extension leads to a net decrease in our population. This is terrible for our economy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Tell me, when was it the case that Roman culture caused Britain to be obsessed with homosexual sex?
    This is from Wikipedia, but if you're sceptical, I'm sure I can find citations to back it up.

    (Original post by Wikipedia)

    117 to 138 Roman Emperor Hadrian ruled Britain. Best known for building Hadrian's Wall, which marked the northern limit of Roman Britain, Hadrian was the first Roman Emperor to make it clear that he was homosexual. Hadrian uniquely made Antinous, a beautiful young Bithynian youth, his "official consort"; Antinous accompanied him throughout the Empire. Hadrian was so distraught by Antinous's death in the Nile in 130 CE that he named a city in Egypt, Antinopolis, after him and deified him.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Planes and cooking are constructive things that are meant to make the human race more productive, and are signs of the supremacy of the human race over other animals. Sex between those of the same sex, on the other hand, does not enhance our productivity, nor is it in any way constructive.
    OK, I'll bite and use your style of argument. Logically emotions are pointless, we have no use for them. However, if you look deeper; people with a higher morale (happier people) are generally more productive; this gives a reason for happiness to exist on a logical basis. Being LGBT is what some people need to be happy, which makes them more productive. So by that logic, if you stop discriminating against them and allow them all the knowledge they need to be happy; they will contribute more to society.
    • Section Leader
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    You realise that's not an argument against homosexuality, right? It's just a tangent to the topic at hand. We can spin it whichever way you want though, really. I specified that the relationship shouldn't harm anyone if it were to be acceptable, so the risk put on any offspring from an incestual couple would fall under that, no?

    But if it's not causing harm to anyone, it's not technically bad. Whilst I don't personally support it, there's not an inherent moral argument against it. It's also not a sexuality, and therefore not directly comparable.

    More to the point, this is an argument specifically about LGBT+ relationships, which you have yet to put a new argument against.
    This is about the education of LGBT relationships. What I am arguing is that there is no need to educate children about these relationships that in many cases result in no reproduction. We should not promoting these relationships to young children, lest more of them opt for not reproducing when they grow up, which by extension leads to a net decrease in our population. This is terrible for our economy.
    Just like we teach hetro risks such as STIs and relationship abuse, these are still required for LGBT. We definitely aren't having a decreased population, what nonsense, our population is so high that the burden on health services can't cope. That's like saying those who are infertile or don't want children are terrible for the economy - rubbish - if anything, they are a help to reduce this pressure on our services.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    This is about the education of LGBT relationships. What I am arguing is that there is no need to educate children about these relationships that in many cases result in no reproduction. We should not promoting these relationships to young children, lest more of them opt for not reproducing when they grow up, which by extension leads to a net decrease in our population. This is terrible for our economy.
    Actually, a number of LGBT couples still raise children, so the relationship itself will can still contribute in that manner. The majority of people won't purely have sex for reproduction, and some may not had kids at all; unless you're also advocating a system whereby we only educate those that we somehow know will have children, your argument is essentially moot. By extension, LGBT+ education has no more bearing on the economy than anyone else without children, and if anything, it's a good thing, as they're more likely to support a family if they're happy and stable in their relationship.

    If you don't educate people, it will have absolutely no bearing on how many grow up LGBT+. All that you'll do is ensure that more of them grow up unhappy, and feeling as if there is something wrong with them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=BurstingBubbles;66277802]
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)

    Just like we teach hetro risks such as STIs and relationship abuse, these are still required for LGBT. We definitely aren't having a decreased population, what nonsense, our population is so high that the burden on health services can't cope. That's like saying those who are infertile or don't want children are terrible for the economy - rubbish - if anything, they are a help to reduce this pressure on our services.
    It's true that the birth rate in England decreased by 0.5% between 2013 and 2014.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    OK, I'll bite and use your style of argument. Logically emotions are pointless, we have no use for them. However, if you look deeper; people with a higher morale (happier people) are generally more productive; this gives a reason for happiness to exist on a logical basis. Being LGBT is what some people need to be happy, which makes them more productive. So by that logic, if you stop discriminating against them and allow them all the knowledge they need to be happy; they will contribute more to society.
    The thing is, I am not discriminating against them, but there is absolutely no need to be wasting money on teaching LGBT relationships to children. If they were born to be LGBT, then they would be that to maximise their happiness, would they not? By promoting LGBT relationships disguised as education, children may become LGBT when they are actually heterosexual, which results in a net decrease in happiness in society. There is absolutely no need to cause more people to be unhappy by having LGBT education.
    • Section Leader
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Mactotaur)

    It's true that the birth rate in England decreased by 0.5% between 2013 and 2014.
    If true, that's not something which worries me, considering the pressures we face already. As mentioned above, LGBT people can still be parents. Also they are potentially more likely to adopt children who are in need of a loving home and who are actually wanted.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    Actually, a number of LGBT couples still raise children, so the relationship itself will can still contribute in that manner. The majority of people won't purely have sex for reproduction, and some may not had kids at all; unless you're also advocating a system whereby we only educate those that we somehow know will have children, your argument is essentially moot. By extension, LGBT+ education has no more bearing on the economy than anyone else without children, and if anything, it's a good thing, as they're more likely to support a family if they're happy and stable in their relationship.

    If you don't educate people, it will have absolutely no bearing on how many grow up LGBT+. All that you'll do is ensure that more of them grow up unhappy, and feeling as if there is something wrong with them.
    Today's media already promotes LGBTism enough. There is no need to waste additional money to reassure LGBT people to make them feel happy, as if they are special needs individuals.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    The thing is, I am not discriminating against them, but there is absolutely no need to be wasting money on teaching LGBT relationships to children. If they were born to be LGBT, then they would be that to maximise their happiness, would they not? By promoting LGBT relationships disguised as education, children may become LGBT when they are actually heterosexual, which results in a net decrease in happiness in society. There is absolutely no need to cause more people to be unhappy by having LGBT education.
    You can't change your sexual orientation, so 'promoting LGBT relationships' (by which you mean simply telling children they exist and how they work) wouldn't affect those who are heterosexual.

    I'm tempted to draw comparisons between your 'promoting LGBT relationships' and Russia's "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships", but I think I'll leave that one for now.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    You can't change your sexual orientation, so 'promoting LGBT relationships' (by which you mean simply telling children they exist and how they work) wouldn't affect those who are heterosexual.

    I'm tempted to draw comparisons between your 'promoting LGBT relationships' and Russia's "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships", but I think I'll leave that one for now.
    Talking about this bill: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=3777665?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BurstingBubbles)
    If true, that's not something which worries me, considering the pressures we face already. As mentioned above, LGBT people can still be parents. Also they are potentially more likely to adopt children who are in need of a loving home and who are actually wanted.
    Considering the overall world overpopulation, it doesn't concern me either.

    LGBT people can absolutely be parents, and adoption is a great thing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Talking about this bill: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=3777665?
    No, I'm talking about the real-life Russian one.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    The thing is, I am not discriminating against them, but there is absolutely no need to be wasting money on teaching LGBT relationships to children. If they were born to be LGBT, then they would be that to maximise their happiness, would they not? By promoting LGBT relationships disguised as education, children may become LGBT when they are actually heterosexual, which results in a net decrease in happiness in society. There is absolutely no need to cause more people to be unhappy by having LGBT education.
    It's not promoting, you just teach them how to be safe if they're hetero or LGBT
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    It's true that the birth rate in England decreased by 0.5% between 2013 and 2014.
    Our population is still growing though :yep:

    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    The thing is, I am not discriminating against them, but there is absolutely no need to be wasting money on teaching LGBT relationships to children. If they were born to be LGBT, then they would be that to maximise their happiness, would they not? By promoting LGBT relationships disguised as education, children may become LGBT when they are actually heterosexual, which results in a net decrease in happiness in society. There is absolutely no need to cause more people to be unhappy by having LGBT education.
    There's literally no evidence to suggest that would happen.

    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Today's media already promotes LGBTism enough. There is no need to waste additional money to reassure LGBT people to make them feel happy, as if they are special needs individuals.
    36% of representation is negative, and 31% is realistic but show the characters to be upset or distressed. Exactly where is the sufficient support in that? That's not even mentioning how little representation there is in the first place.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    There's literally no evidence to suggest that would happen.
    If anything, as I've said here countless times before, there are so many medical authorities in this country which firmly state that you cannot change your sexuality. Not even if you wanted to.
    • Section Leader
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    The thing is, I am not discriminating against them, but there is absolutely no need to be wasting money on teaching LGBT relationships to children. If they were born to be LGBT, then they would be that to maximise their happiness, would they not? By promoting LGBT relationships disguised as education, children may become LGBT when they are actually heterosexual, which results in a net decrease in happiness in society. There is absolutely no need to cause more people to be unhappy by having LGBT education.
    "Become LGBT" - do you think people just wake up one day and decide who they love? No. Just like all of us, we can't choose who we love. If anything, they are likely to try not to be LGBT - especially if you look at some of the disgusting comments about LGBT here, do you think if they could be in a more 'accepted' hetro relationship they wouldn't be? We need to have education to show them that they are accepted, because they are people and are good enough. People have enough difficulty accepting themselves without people like users on this thread making them feel even more alienated. God would not be pleased with those putting people down and hating on them for simply loving someone.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 7, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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.