Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

What harm do homosexuals actually cause? Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Musie Suzie)
    But obviously that's not true - is this for my benefit or that of others? I'm not trying to propogate the idea that all gays have HIV and should therefore remain celibate to be safe. That would be ridiculous.

    Also please see my edit above
    For others. No many people think that's obviously true.

    ---

    The thing is they are not random samples. We don't actually know if MSM has that much of a bigger risk or not, and it would difficult to just calculate the 'possibility' for different types of sex has different 'ease' of contacting HIV.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    For others. No many people think that's obviously true.

    ---

    The thing is they are not random samples. We don't actually know if MSM has that much of a bigger risk or not, and it would difficult to just calculate the 'possibility' for different types of sex has different 'ease' of contacting HIV.
    Ok. So conclusion: inconclusive.

    Thanks
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Musie Suzie)
    Ok. So conclusion: inconclusive.

    Thanks
    But I want to also point out that it makes perfect sense for HIV rates to go up faster within gays because it's a smaller community, so it's easier to get things spreaded. (And it snowballs.)

    It would however be an unfair way of assessing it when you include genders in the hetero sample but not both in the homo one.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    They aren't all mentally unstable you know. They just happen to like the same sex as themselves. What harm do you think they do? Going around shopping centres breaking shop windows whilst having raging gay sex..?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    That's really callous.
    yes, but a sad reality.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by natninja)
    In ancient Greece it was even encouraged.
    Quite, got to love the Greeks
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bazbaz)
    Quite, got to love the Greeks
    And their phalluses.

    *phalanxes, oops ;-)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    You would think that the reason so many societies condemn homosexuality is because it causes much more harm than good. Indeed, a large amount of humanity's rules and principles are based on the notion that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to others.

    So what harm do homosexuals, and homosexuality as a concept, cause to warrant such condemnation?
    Apparently all homophobes think they're irresistible to homosexuals and thus are at risk of at best uncomfortable passes and at worst sexual assault.

    Ironically enough most of these same homophobes look like a sack of potatoes as well sooooo.

    The short answer is that they cause no harm.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alis-volatpropriis)
    I really have no idea, I've always wondered this too. I recently discovered that homosexuals cannot just sign up and give blood, why?
    No way, that must be bull****, lmao
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
    Ever had a torn anus?
    Nope, but then I have had sex primarily with other women...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    Nope, but then I have had sex primarily with other women...
    Your obviously not using toys correctly.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
    Your obviously not using toys correctly.
    If you say so...

    I only bring it up because I'm sick of the 'anal sex is bad' 'argument' (I use the term loosely) against homosexuality. Because not all gay people do it - almost no lesbians and not all gay men. And straight people do it too!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    The contradiction to this logic lies in the fact that, generally, Christianity throughout the ages has promoted monogamous marriage. That certainly isn't conducive to growing a population.
    How? Isn't it conductive enough when they have loads of kids, which many monogamous couples have done anyway? And it's still more conductive to population growth than gay couples not having kids.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    None - PEOPLE cause harm, nothing to do with their sexuality, just personality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Top Queen)
    It all goes down to religion. They go against what God wants.
    Why would God (if he existed) even care if someone wants it in the ass.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alis-volatpropriis)
    I really have no idea, I've always wondered this too. I recently discovered that homosexuals cannot just sign up and give blood, why?
    Because homosexuals are more likely to contract Aids/HIV than a straight person.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michael_98)
    Because homosexuals are more likely to contract Aids/HIV than a straight person.
    Not true. Anal sex is more likely to pass on STDs than vaginal sex, yes, and obviously sexually active gay men, on average, have anal sex more often than sexually active heterosexuals.

    But apart from this not applying to lesbian women, it's also heavily dependent upon other things like promiscuity, whether you use a condom or not, etc.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    Why not blood test them so the clinic knows they're safe?
    Expense maybe? I've given blood and you're tested for iron beforehand, I guess maybe the testing might be wrong, so overall it's best to rule out the highest risk people. If you donate blood, you see that there are many different reasons they exclude you, having sex with men is only one of those. It seems a little ridiculous that the NHS would be suffering, but exclude men who have sex with men out of extreme homophobia.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blueray2)
    I'll play devils advocate here.
    "Devils advocate" - sure.

    With more people being taught it is ok to be homosexual and have homosexual relationships in school, more kids may become gay.
    Nonsense. Where is the scientific evidence that long-term, innate homosexual tendencies can be taught through the very occasional PSHE lesson which relates to homosexuality?

    I know because people that I knew who were straight before became gay later, I asked how is that possible aren;t you born gay,they said some say so, but thats not really true, they said it was due to hormonal imbalances shifted towards men instead of women.
    Anecdotal irrelevancy.

    Similar story like that of a man that became gay after a hospital operation.
    Again, a worthless anecdote with no scientific evidence.

    With the stigma removed from schools, more people will become gay and this could mean
    a problem of less population and mean a greater tax burden on a smaller population who are supporting the ageing gay population.
    Even if I accept your nonsense hypothesis that the odd PSHE lesson can make a child gay in the long-term, are you honestly saying that this will happen to thousands, if not millions, of people? Being gay has been pretty much perceived as okay in a number of civilisations, including Ancient Rome, did they suddenly have a massive boom in their gay populations?

    Also the argument that less kids means less global warming is insignificant. If we all turned vegetarian we could have lots of kids since they wouldn't be consuming high co2 reared meat.
    Are you for real? You think the main effect/problem of over-population is global warming? LOL!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zorgotron)
    To many people, what constitutes moral and decent behavior is something that transcends harm. We don't decide what things should be allowed and what things shouldn't be allowed based only on harm. What does harm even mean? Are we only talking about physical harm or are we also talking about psychological harm?
    Harm is a broad concept; nonetheless, I fail to see how harm is caused to any third party by two anonymous men having relations behind closed doors.

    Men are doing this now, in fact, what harm, under any definition of the term, are they directly causing you?

    As to your first comment, that is wholly subjective and relative. If disabled people being able to go out their business is wholly immoral and indecent to me, should it become unlawful? At least the harm principle has some objectivity to it.

    I can ask the exact same question when it comes to walking around naked or even masturbating in public? What harm am I causing? Sure, people may be disgusted or offended, but that's their problem not mine. I'm not actively hurting them. So why does society look down upon it despite the fact that it causes no harm.
    How is that comparable to two gay people having sex in a private bedroom somewhere? What people view or even know about this? It's a flawed analogy and society looks down on public nakedness due to the subjective norms of the time not because it necessarily causes real harm.
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?

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.