Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imperial maniac)
    :facepalm: Conditions relating to old age and genetic defects are not comparable.

    You see, to me, it is blindingly obvious what is normal and what is not normal, I don't understand how you can see something like homosexuality as being normal when it so clearly is not normal.

    Okay, let's make another comparison, paedophilia, this time it's a genetic defect which results in someone being sexually attracted to children, they can't help their sexuality, it's just how their brain works, like homosexuality it's a genetic defect. Except instead of trying to help paedophiles we lock them up like murderers while homosexuals get treated like kings.

    It's damned illogical.
    Paedophillia is damaging and harmful to children, and so is not ok.
    Homosexuality harms no one.
    That is the difference. If it is natural, and doesn't harm anyone (physically or psychologically), then there's nothing wrong with it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    The majority of wars fought for religion have actually had other motives. PEOPLE cause wars; it's usually over land or power, and they use religion as an excuse.
    Religion doesn't CAUSE war at all.
    Even if religion isn't a motive, humans find another one.

    (Original post by sherlllll)
    Wars fought on religious grounds are to me really examples of how society has corrupted the original purposes of religion. They cannot be honestly justified on religious grounds. The purpose of religion to me seems to be so incredibly noble; helping those who need help the most and offering nothing but morality and grace to the world whilst being a collective comfort millions can derive hope from, I cannot help but respect it and strive to shape my life around it.

    Yes, Emma above me said what I was also going to say.

    (Original post by Helevorn)
    Just to point out, as a gay man i am also religious. I don't attend mass anymore because i don't really feel welcome, but i still believe, and it still has a role in my life. My fiance is the same, also Catholic. We didn't choose to be gay, but we still choose to be Christian, and i don't care if people say the bible damns us, Jesus did not.
    +ve rep to these comments, I really liked them...


    ...even if they're off-topic :ninja:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    Paedophillia is damaging and harmful to children, and so is not ok.
    Homosexuality harms no one.
    That is the difference. If it is natural, and doesn't harm anyone (physically or psychologically), then there's nothing wrong with it.
    I'm not making a negative moral judgement on homosexuality.

    I'M SAYING IT ISN'T THE NORM.

    That isn't the same as saying that it is wrong...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imperial maniac)
    :facepalm: Conditions relating to old age and genetic defects are not comparable.

    You see, to me, it is blindingly obvious what is normal and what is not normal, I don't understand how you can see something like homosexuality as being normal when it so clearly is not normal.

    Okay, let's make another comparison, paedophilia, this time it's a genetic defect which results in someone being sexually attracted to children, they can't help their sexuality, it's just how their brain works, like homosexuality it's a genetic defect. Except instead of trying to help paedophiles we lock them up like murderers while homosexuals get treated like kings.

    It's damned illogical.
    You really think that paedophilia and homosexuality are the same?! Paedophilia is very damaging where as homosexuality hurts no one. Is paedophilia really a genetic defect? I always thought it was a mental illness and yes people are locked away for it but they are also treated and rehabilitated. Paedophilia isn't a sexuality as it has been well documented that it isn't about the sex but the control etc. Just like rapists.

    Homosexuals get treated like kings?! :confused:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imperial maniac)
    I'm not making a negative moral judgement on homosexuality.

    I'M SAYING IT ISN'T THE NORM.

    That isn't the same as saying that it is wrong...
    But it is normal.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    But it is normal.
    Being normal is: "conforming with an average standard or level or type"

    In behavior, normal refers to a lack of significant deviation from the average.

    I don't think you can call it normal as at the end of the day it is an atypical form of relationship isn't it?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sherlllll)
    Being normal is: "conforming with an average standard or level or type"

    In behavior, normal refers to a lack of significant deviation from the average.

    I don't think you can call it normal as at the end of the day it is an atypical form of relationship isn't it?
    There are SO many homosexuals these days, I think that counts as normal.

    And if that's what you mean by normal, then I don't see why that's even bad.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It's a good thing. It should hopefully cause the next generation to be more open minded and acceptive of people with different tastes. Not just with homosexuality, but with people who choose to spend their lives exploring mind and consciousness ("no good druggies" to most of you people).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    There are SO many homosexuals these days, I think that counts as normal.

    And if that's what you mean by normal, then I don't see why that's even bad.
    Why would you even consider it bad in the first place? That's the problem with this society, they think the word "normal" is a positive word and "weird/abnormal" is a negative word. When they aren't. I'll leave you to think about why this is.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Sex education is a big farce anyway. It just gives various liberal left do gooders jobs and forces teachers into something pointless when the kids could be doing PE. And I think judging by the size of many kids PE would be far more beneficial.

    Teenage pregnancies are through the roof despite it. The reason teenage pregnancies are high is because of the media with lock of morals, the liberal baby boomer generation and most importantly the ending of the stigma of being a ******* child.(child out of wedlock).In the old days being a ******* child meant
    years of namecalling and bullying. Being a mother who had a child without marriage was seen as disgusting.She was seen as unclean and at best was blanked in the community and at worst her ******* was put in a childrens home run by a religious order and she was thrown in an insane asylum for being promiscious and ruining the family name.

    This stigma was still there during the post war years, as my elderly aunt had a child out of wedlock and the family doctor who had treated her since she was a child told her mother (my gran) she was a whore and refused to treat her again.


    Society even rewards these women these days with council housing and benefits if your family isn't well off, and even if there are rich the daughter will tend not to get disowned. Sex education cannot replicate the societal change this is why it is pointless to prevent teenage pregananices.


    Believe me even promoting homosexuality will have little effect in schools in just the same way. Because there are always those who pick on those who are different and it's human nature to see a man kissing or buggering another man as unatural. It will be a pointless waste of time and money,when that money could be use to buy books and computers ,and that time could be used for PE or perhaps giving pupils life skills like showing them how to cook or wire a plug. Far more beneficial things.This form of persuasive social engineering never works. Human beings need harsh laws, they need discipline too keep them well behaved but they also need to think for themselves and realise certain behaviours are wrong.Whether that be a girl spreading her legs for all and sundry and bearing a child or someone calling some a [email protected] I went to sex education it was pointless, and it always will be.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edd360)
    Why would you even consider it bad in the first place? That's the problem with this society, they think the word "normal" is a positive word and "weird/abnormal" is a negative word. When they aren't. I'll leave you to think about why this is.
    That was pretty patronising.
    I guess it was the way you were talking about it all that made me think YOU meant it was bad.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    That was pretty patronising.
    I guess it was the way you were talking about it all that made me think YOU meant it was bad.
    Tbh i was oblivious to the fact I was quoting you after my first sentence, that was actually just a general statement for everyone, but I guess it still applies to you. I don't really think it's patronising. It certainly wasn't my intention. I genuinely wanted anyone reading it to think about why it actually is the case. I'm just trying to open peoples mind up and help them understand the objectivity of situations.

    Oh and btw, I wasn't the original person you quoted I just jumped in having something to say after seeing what you wrote.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edd360)
    Tbh i was oblivious to the fact I was quoting you after my first sentence, that was actually just a general statement for everyone, but I guess it still applies to you. I don't really think it's patronising. It certainly wasn't my intention. I genuinely wanted anyone reading it to think about why it actually is the case. I'm just trying to open peoples mind up and help them understand the objectivity of situations.

    Oh and btw, I wasn't the original person you quoted I just jumped in having something to say after seeing what you wrote.
    I know you're not the only person who's quoted me lol
    Ok.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alharrison4)
    Was there actually a point to that?
    Why do you wanna know huh?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by We love gays :))
    Why do you wanna know huh?
    Because you quoted me I assumed you had something worthwhile to say. Obviously I was mistaken :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How is it wrong to encourage it? It teaches kids to be more open and not afraid to show their true self. School yard bullying is one of the hardest things, and being accused of homosexuality is one of the biggest. Is it so wrong to teach them to accept the differences of others? No.
    Our socitiy is pathetic with it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alharrison4)
    Because you quoted me I assumed you had something worthwhile to say. Obviously I was mistaken :rolleyes:
    Well duh obviously you were .... anyways i'm off catch
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ministerdonut)
    Teenage pregnancies are through the roof despite it. The reason teenage pregnancies are high is because of the media with lock of morals
    Of course, we don't need to mention that teenage pregnancies have steadily declined as we've gained a more comprehensive sex education syllabus? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ministerdonut)
    Sex education is a big farce anyway. It just gives various liberal left do gooders jobs and forces teachers into something pointless when the kids could be doing PE. And I think judging by the size of many kids PE would be far more beneficial.

    Teenage pregnancies are through the roof despite it. The reason teenage pregnancies are high is because of the media with lock of morals, the liberal baby boomer generation and most importantly the ending of the stigma of being a ******* child.(child out of wedlock).In the old days being a ******* child meant
    years of namecalling and bullying. Being a mother who had a child without marriage was seen as disgusting.She was seen as unclean and at best was blanked in the community and at worst her ******* was put in a childrens home run by a religious order and she was thrown in an insane asylum for being promiscious and ruining the family name.

    This stigma was still there during the post war years, as my elderly aunt had a child out of wedlock and the family doctor who had treated her since she was a child told her mother (my gran) she was a whore and refused to treat her again.


    Society even rewards these women these days with council housing and benefits if your family isn't well off, and even if there are rich the daughter will tend not to get disowned. Sex education cannot replicate the societal change this is why it is pointless to prevent teenage pregananices.


    Believe me even promoting homosexuality will have little effect in schools in just the same way. Because there are always those who pick on those who are different and it's human nature to see a man kissing or buggering another man as unatural. It will be a pointless waste of time and money,when that money could be use to buy books and computers ,and that time could be used for PE or perhaps giving pupils life skills like showing them how to cook or wire a plug. Far more beneficial things.This form of persuasive social engineering never works. Human beings need harsh laws, they need discipline too keep them well behaved but they also need to think for themselves and realise certain behaviours are wrong.Whether that be a girl spreading her legs for all and sundry and bearing a child or someone calling some a [email protected] I went to sex education it was pointless, and it always will be.
    Are some people really this stupid?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    I see no problem with someone acting upon what's natural to them.
    How far would you take this? For example, people were discussing above how paedophiles have no choice in their attractions; it comes naturally to them. Some people can naturally have higher levels of aggression than others. What criteria would you use for deciding which natural desires can be acted on (and are they different from the criteria for non-natural desires?)?
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.