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

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
    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?)?
    I've actually already spoken about this. As long as it's not harmful to others there's no issue. Paedophillia (or acting upon the urges at least) is horrible, because it is so harmful to children. Being "naturally ore violent" isn't ok, because it's harmful to others.
    Being a homosexual is fine because it's natural, AND because it doesn't harm anyone.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imperial maniac)
    Is this a good thing?

    Acceptance of homosexuality is one thing, but actively teaching it as the norm to children, is that crossing a line?

    http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/homosexua...ren-young-five

    ofc the source isn't exactly, erm...unbiased, but assuming what it says is true, do you see this as a victory for equality or as the BNP puts it "homosexual propaganda."

    Edit: Thanks for the neg guys... maybe I should I've pointed out that I'm not agreeing with the BNP in any way here, it's just an interesting point of contention and I wanted to see what people's opinions were on this. I don't think my post in any way suggests that I agree with them on this matter, I'm sitting on the fence, and made the thread so I could make a more informed decision after listening to the arguments for and against.
    Encouraging homosexuality? You mean in the same way a school would encourage the completion of homework?

    Homosexuality cannot be "encouraged". It's not a hobby... nobody can be taught to be homosexual. And as far as it being taught as a "norm", why shouldn't it be? The way forward is to show future generations that homosexuality IS normal... just as normal as having red hair or green eyes. Uncommon in comparison to heterosexuality, yes. But abnormal? No.

    The notion of homosexual propoganda is rather silly. Do you think people want to indoctrinate children and make them gay? All this would aim to do would be to educate people about homosexual people and inform them that it is completely ordinary. It will help young queer students to accept themselves and also be accepted by their students, who have been educated about the issue. Why do some straight people fear this education? Are you so insecure in your own sexuality that you believe it is possible someone could "teach" straight people to be gay?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    I've actually already spoken about this. As long as it's not harmful to others there's no issue. Paedophillia (or acting upon the urges at least) is horrible, because it is so harmful to children. Being "naturally ore violent" isn't ok, because it's harmful to others.
    Being a homosexual is fine because it's natural, AND because it doesn't harm anyone.
    I did see people talking about the harm caused, but if harm is the criterion for whether or not we ought to act on our desires, does the naturalness make any difference?

    For example, if I had an unnatural desire, I suspect you would say I can act on it as long as it didn't harm anyone. In which case, surely it makes no difference to reference naturalness at all?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
    I did see people talking about the harm caused, but if harm is the criterion for whether or not we ought to act on our desires, does the naturalness make any difference?

    For example, if I had an unnatural desire, I suspect you would say I can act on it as long as it didn't harm anyone. In which case, surely it makes no difference to reference naturalness at all?
    The naturalness is mostly relevent to people who say "it's un-natural/wrong/" etc... That's why that's been brought up, on my part anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    The naturalness is mostly relevent to people who say "it's un-natural/wrong/" etc... That's why that's been brought up, on my part anyway.
    OK, so in your view homosexuality is morally acceptable because it doesn't harm anybody, but you're only mentioning that you think it's natural because some people object to it on the basis that it isn't?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tamiekaleigh)
    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.
    Tammy you're gay i'm just sayin but I love you :P
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imperial maniac)
    Is this a good thing?

    Acceptance of homosexuality is one thing, but actively teaching it as the norm to children, is that crossing a line?

    http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/homosexua...ren-young-five

    ofc the source isn't exactly, erm...unbiased, but assuming what it says is true, do you see this as a victory for equality or as the BNP puts it "homosexual propaganda."

    Edit: Thanks for the neg guys... maybe I should I've pointed out that I'm not agreeing with the BNP in any way here, it's just an interesting point of contention and I wanted to see what people's opinions were on this. I don't think my post in any way suggests that I agree with them on this matter, I'm sitting on the fence, and made the thread so I could make a more informed decision after listening to the arguments for and against.


    Teaching children about homosexuality isn't the same as encouraging homosexuality.

    How on earth can you encourage someone to be gay anyway?

    Material funded by British taxpayers is being used to brainwash primary school children with homosexual propaganda From the BNP website. LOL, the gays are coming to get us!!

    I wish the BNP would stop using the Union Jack on their logo. It makes me feel embarrassed to be British
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
    OK, so in your view homosexuality is morally acceptable because it doesn't harm anybody, but you're only mentioning that you think it's natural because some people object to it on the basis that it isn't?
    Yeah, exactly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    ...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    You think sex is un-natural? What on earth is wrong with you?

    My point is how un-natural it would be to force yourself to be with someone who you are not attracted to at all.
    That's really not what I said, at all.

    Of course it would be unnatural to force yourself to have sex with someone you're not attracted to. That's the whole reason why I was astonished at your logic! Welshbluebird and Stefan seem to have got confused about this too, so I'll take time to clarify.

    I said attraction to the same sex isn't a choice (as I think we all agree), but that sex with the same sex is a choice. You conceded that it is a choice, but then said "But it's horribly un-natural to force yourself to be with someone you're not attracted to at all."

    This looks weird to me, because the underlying logic is that everyone must be in a sexual relationship if they are to count as a proper person. That if they are not able to have sex with someone they are attracted to, they must have sex with someone they're not.
    Sex being a choice, it isn't logically true that everyone must have sex, so the fact that you'd bring up the strange hypothetical case of someone - unable to have sex with someone they're attracted to - forcing themselves to have sex with someone they're not is revealing of some odd assumptions.

    The logical assumption that everyone must have sex even with people they're not attracted to is - I assert - as closed-minded and totalitarian as the whackjob U.S. Protestants who suggest that everyone should be married or they are an unnatural corruption.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Sex is a totally natural and normal part of any romantic relationship.
    There is nothing wrong with it, and it is not "dirty" or whatever.
    Hopefully clarified above, now?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    :lolwut:

    Having sex is arguably the most natural thing in the world. How on Earth do you define natural then?
    Hopefully clarified above, now?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Invictus_88;30685289][COLOR="Navy"]That's really not what I said, at all.

    Of course it would be unnatural to force yourself to have sex with someone you're not attracted to. That's the whole reason why I was astonished at your logic! Welshbluebird and Stefan seem to have got confused about this too, so I'll take time to clarify.

    I said attraction to the same sex isn't a choice (as I think we all agree), but that sex with the same sex is a choice. You conceded that it is a choice, but then said "But it's horribly un-natural to force yourself to be with someone you're not attracted to at all."


    That's a complete *******ization of what was said and makes is completely irrelevant to the argument anyway. Sorry but you are going to have to be more clever if you are going to use blatant logical fallacies like that as a disguise for something rational.

    Whether homosexuality is a choice or not is completely IRRELEVANT.

    (Original post by Invictus_88)
    [COLOR="Navy"]
    This looks weird to me, because the underlying logic is that everyone must be in a sexual relationship if they are to count as a proper person.
    [/colour]

    NOBODY is suggesting that. It is their RIGHT to be in a sexual relationship with whoever they want.

    (Original post by Invictus_88)

    That if they are not able to have sex with someone they are attracted to, they must have sex with someone they're not.

    Sex being a choice, it isn't logically true that everyone must have sex, so the fact that you'd bring up the strange hypothetical case of someone - unable to have sex with someone they're attracted to - forcing themselves to have sex with someone they're not is revealing of some odd assumptions.

    The logical assumption that everyone must have sex even with people they're not attracted to is - I assert - as closed-minded and totalitarian as the whackjob U.S. Protestants who suggest that everyone should be married or they are an unnatural corruption.
    NOBODY is saying that, or even suggesting that. What kind of crack are you on?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Emaemmaemily did.

    Perhaps Emaemmaemily was confused and unclear and did so unintentionally, but that's what she said and it's that logic I'm concerned about and replying to.

    Did I misread her?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invictus_88)
    [COLOR="Navy"]That's really not what I said, at all.

    Of course it would be unnatural to force yourself to have sex with someone you're not attracted to. That's the whole reason why I was astonished at your logic! Welshbluebird and Stefan seem to have got confused about this too, so I'll take time to clarify.

    I said attraction to the same sex isn't a choice (as I think we all agree), but that sex with the same sex is a choice. You conceded that it is a choice, but then said "But it's horribly un-natural to force yourself to be with someone you're not attracted to at all."

    This looks weird to me, because the underlying logic is that everyone must be in a sexual relationship if they are to count as a proper person. That if they are not able to have sex with someone they are attracted to, they must have sex with someone they're not.
    Sex being a choice, it isn't logically true that everyone must have sex, so the fact that you'd bring up the strange hypothetical case of someone - unable to have sex with someone they're attracted to - forcing themselves to have sex with someone they're not is revealing of some odd assumptions.

    The logical assumption that everyone must have sex even with people they're not attracted to is - I assert - as closed-minded and totalitarian as the whackjob U.S. Protestants who suggest that everyone should be married or they are an unnatural corruption.[/COLOR]
    I think you may have misread me... But I'm not sure because it was a while ago now.

    Being homosexual isn't a choice. It's technically a choice to act upon those urges, but then everyone chooses to do the same whether they're homosexual or not.
    It is natural to have sex, an urge from nature. If it is natural to be homosexual, and natural to have sex...
    Or if I put it another way, it is unatural to force yourself never to have sex, just as you agree it is unatural to force yourself to have sex with someone you're not attracted to.

    I don't actually remember what my main point was before... I might take some time to re-read the conversation later.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I personally don't really care about what a person's sexual preference is. It's their preference and I don't believe that it's up to others to... push their opinion farther than it should be.

    Sure people are going to be biased and I dont' really come in contact with many homosexual males, however I do have a gay guy in my Chem 2 lecture and lab classes that I'm cool with and who I complete class work with all the time.

    Does it matter that he's gay? No. I'm not just going to diss him or blow him off because he likes men, hell me and him are in the top percentile of those classes along with the other select few people who study with us.

    Discriminating based on sexual preference is just plain ignorant and stupid.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.