The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Homosexuality is wrong.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
It seems as though the practice of homosexuals is born more out of lust than any natural urge.


The old argument from prejudice. And it is wrong/not true as well. Two gay men or two gay women can feel lust as any heterosexual couple. And each of the three groups are capable of both love and lust for one another respectively.
(edited 10 years ago)
You're wrong.
Reply 22
Original post by Cornelius
Your title is "Homosexuality is wrong". Wrong here can only mean morally wrong.

---> Troll.

Find a hobby sir.


Why don't you deal with my arguments? This isn't a troll. Again, perhaps my wording was wrong. When I meant wrong, I meant incorrect from an objective, biological viewpoint if that makes any sense. I don't want to discuss the morality of homosexuality.
Reply 23
I need to make one of those ultimate Homosexuality topics tbh, with all the refutations and intellectual arguments against. Only the blue card deters me.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Al-Mudaari
I need to make one of those ultimate Homosexuality topics tbh.


I don't think that would stop the influx of threads about it, unfortunately.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underd0g
I'm merely looking for scientific arguments in favour of the practice. If it is a moral choice, then it's a different story; I don't think we would have a leg to stand on when we attempt to lecture states such as Russia and Uganda on this issue.


There are no more 'scientific arguments' in favour of homosexuality than there are for heterosexual sex using a condom - if we're going back to arguments that are this simple then the only form of sex that is of any value at all is between two heterosexual people for the purposes of procreation. However, there is arguably a 'scientific argument' in that homosexual activities, just like any other form of consensual sexual activity, provide pleasure to those involved.

And why shouldn't we challenge the backwards approaches of Russia and Uganda without a 'scientific argument'? Saying that we can only really justify allowing homosexuality if there is a scientific benefit to it is stupid - otherwise you could just about as easily ban any of the other things we do for nothing more than pleasure, such as playing video games or something like that. The fact remains that two people being in a homosexual relationship doesn't affect anyone outside of that relationship; and therefore the frankly barbaric ways in which Uganda and Russia have been treating homosexual people are of no benefit to anyone.
That's not your name and that's not your picture and your talking nonsense and no one should listen to you!
Original post by Underd0g
x


"Natural" refers to something where humans have had no any influence in the process resulting in the final product and so, if a biological basis for sexuality, explaining heterosexuality, homosexuality and the whole pansexual-spectra was found clearly highlighting that is indeed natural, but as with many things in nature, doesn't necessarily conform to societal expectations, would you then accept homosexuality as natural?

I always think it's slightly ironic that people use the internet to present arguments against sexualities other than heterosexuality based on the idea of whether it's natural..
Reply 28
Original post by Underd0g
Why don't you deal with my arguments? This isn't a troll. Again, perhaps my wording was wrong. When I meant wrong, I meant incorrect from an objective, biological viewpoint if that makes any sense. I don't want to discuss the morality of homosexuality.


I am sorry I didn't see any arguments...

What does "incorrect from an objective, biological viewpoint" even mean? Once again, our genitals evolved partly in order to reproduce. So partly the reason for my having a penis is because I was designed to survive and reproduce and my penis can aid me in both.

In what way would it be incorrect if I denied to make use of my evolved capacity to reproduce and instead wore condoms or ONLY had anal or oral sex? say with people of the opposite sex rather than people of the same sex. It's incorrect because ...? it's as "incorrect" as using my toothbrush to clean the floor rather than brush my teeth. It's a trivial and slightly ridiculous matter to discuss. That is you'd have a hard time convincing people you're not a failed troll.

And your title IS provocative and trollish...
(edited 10 years ago)
I completely agree with everyone who says that homosexuality is on the same level as bestiality, cannibalism, incest, and especially paedophilia!!!!!!

oh wait----

These posts frustrate me so much. As much as I love and encourage open discussion, in the case of this topic we aren't going to read the post and think 'oh, I've suddenly completely re-evaluated my opinion and now think homosexuality is abhorrent and unnatural'. And the same for the converse - Underd0g and Al-Mudaari aren't suddenly going to become the epitome of tolerant loving human beings.

Any homosexual knows that homosexuality is not a choice, and anyone who contradicts that is either blind or suffering from lack of knowledge.And they aren't going to find that knowledge without suddenly becoming homosexual (which isn't possible due to the previously referred to lack of control).

The 'it's not natural' argument is frankly weak, with little grounded backing and many contradictions that can easily put it to bed as an argument. It's a little akin to the furious theist crying 'well what started the big bang?' as he revels in the pools of uncertainty that underline the teleological argument. We may not understand something, but that certainly doesn't make it unnatural.

As far as our inability to lecture states such as Uganda and Russia goes, that depends on whether you can tolerate suffering. You may disagree with homosexuality, but if you agree that a homosexual should be bereft of human rights and subjected to death, then well, a sheer self evaluation is needed. That's basic humanity. Furthermore by failing to speak out or support you may as well just be conducing their murder.

I appreciate the somewhat polite and demonstrative nature of 'underd0g's' post and I don't doubt that it came from the heart, and however incorrect (berating myself for calling someone else's opinion 'incorrect' however in this instance I feel it is totally justified) his opinion may be, I thin we can afford him some let off for his understanding.

One day, homosexuality will be completely unquestioned, but no doubt something else will take up the throne as the big debate of nature and 'whether god wants us like this' - maybe a cult of accountants who are fighting for their prerogative to enjoy wearing mixed fabrics? Or perhaps some feisty fellas who just adore allowing their cattle to breed with different kinds of cattle (check the book of the big G if confused) - and we'll continue to battle over tolerance and acceptance.

So while I agree whole heartedly with everyone furiously defending and shutting down those with 'this' (referring to anti homosexuality) opinion, I think that perhaps it is a wasted effort, because most likely they are too stuck in their ways, naive, immature, or just plain twisted (referencing al-mudaari -- check some of his other posts for some golden entertainment and hilarity, such as 'homosexuality vs cannabalism - how loving another man consensually is the same as eating your mother's flesh).

Otherwise, enjoy your day :smile:

ps: I know some may be thinking that I'm contradicting myself getting involved when I said it was a wasted effort, but really I just love an argument.

pps: al-mudaari, i think you should write a book - (but i'm calling 5% profit if you use the name I gave) - I'd read it! :smile:)))
Reply 30
Original post by LookIts_Liam
Any homosexual knows that homosexuality is not a choice, and anyone who contradicts that is either blind or suffering from lack of knowledge.And they aren't going to find that knowledge without suddenly becoming homosexual (which isn't possible due to the previously referred to lack of control).


How would you then explain people who are bisexual?

The 'it's not natural' argument is frankly weak, with little grounded backing and many contradictions that can easily put it to bed as an argument. It's a little akin to the furious theist crying 'well what started the big bang?' as he revels in the pools of uncertainty that underline the teleological argument. We may not understand something, but that certainly doesn't make it unnatural.


Yeah but why is paedophilia different? Is paedophilia paedophilia because we say so? If a 17 yo has sex with a 15 yo is s/he a paedophile? Even still, some children mature much faster than others, so by the age of 13, some girls/boys may possess the physical shape of someone in their twenties. If they consent to sex with someone above 16, is that still paedophilia? If we do not understand why paedophiles commit the acts they do, does that make it unnatural? Where do we draw the line, if at all? As you might very well know, homosexuality was outlawed until not so long ago; will we be sitting here having the same argument about paedophilia in 100-200 years time?

As far as our inability to lecture states such as Uganda and Russia goes, that depends on whether you can tolerate suffering. You may disagree with homosexuality, but if you agree that a homosexual should be bereft of human rights and subjected to death, then well, a sheer self evaluation is needed. That's basic humanity. Furthermore by failing to speak out or support you may as well just be conducing their murder.


This is not about whether I agree or not with homosexuality. I'm trying to separate the two issues. Morality is different. But saying homosexuality is right because it just "feels right" to the homosexuals is flimsy, loose, and quite frankly dangerous.

One day, homosexuality will be completely unquestioned, but no doubt something else will take up the throne as the big debate of nature and 'whether god wants us like this' - maybe a cult of accountants who are fighting for their prerogative to enjoy wearing mixed fabrics? Or perhaps some feisty fellas who just adore allowing their cattle to breed with different kinds of cattle (check the book of the big G if confused) - and we'll continue to battle over tolerance and acceptance.


Perhaps, but the homosexuality is natural argument will linger on forever. I've seen proponents attempt to equate it with race, which is ludicrous.
Reply 31
Original post by Cornelius
What does "incorrect from an objective, biological viewpoint" even mean? Once again, our genitals evolved partly in order to reproduce. So partly the reason for my having a penis is because I was designed to survive and reproduce and my penis can aid me in both.


So our genitals have now evolved to a point where ejaculating into the anus of another male is natural? Surely there are negative biological repercussions? The anus and rectum do not produce any natural lubrication. Is it still natural? Why are we not all doing it?

In what way would it be incorrect if I denied to make use of my evolved capacity to reproduce and instead wore condoms or ONLY had anal or oral sex? say with people of the opposite sex rather than people of the same sex. It's incorrect because ...? it's as "incorrect" as using my toothbrush to clean the floor rather than brush my teeth. It's a trivial and slightly ridiculous matter to discuss. That is you'd have a hard time convincing people you're not a failed troll.


That's all very jolly but ultimately all of that is your CHOICE. What is semen for? And where does excrement come out of? You can do whatever you want with your penis, your semen etc, I understand, but what is its sole, primary purpose?
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 32
Original post by HarryMWilliams
"Natural" refers to something where humans have had no any influence in the process resulting in the final product and so, if a biological basis for sexuality, explaining heterosexuality, homosexuality and the whole pansexual-spectra was found clearly highlighting that is indeed natural, but as with many things in nature, doesn't necessarily conform to societal expectations, would you then accept homosexuality as natural?


Are you including paedophilia in this?
Reply 33
just because there is no reproductive purpose of two men/women having sex does not equate to that being wrong. what kind of logic is that. there are many things we do that don't have a practical purpose, it does not make them wrong.

what do you even mean by wrong anyway? wrong on whose terms? who are we answering to?
if you deem it "morally wrong", why? who is it hurting? what harm is it doing? it's only doing good if you ask me, more love and happiness in the world. if it's wrong due to religious beliefs, who are you to dictate that your religious views are correct?
Original post by Underd0g
Taking emotion away from the argument, I just don't understand how it can be conceived to be 'right'. What is the ultimate purpose of a penis? What is the ultimate purpose of a vagina? Anus? Pardon me for being so graphic, but if one looks at it from a graphic, physical perspective, the idea of a man being with a man and a woman being with a woman does not stand up. The sexual organs were created primarily for procreation, so how can homosexuality then be deemed correct? It seems as though the practice of homosexuals is born more out of lust than any natural urge.


The penis was not made for the mouth, the mouth not made for another human's mouth, and so on. Does that mean that such sexual acts between heterosexual couples are "wrong"?

I do not dispute the fact that individuals of the same sex may have feelings for one another, but having feelings does not make the practice correct. Tolerating something and agreeing that something is right are two different things, though the line between the two has unfortunately become blurred given the swamp of suffocating propaganda imposed upon the citizens of Western societies over the past few decades.


This is conjecture.

Another argument put forward by proponents is that homosexual practice in animals has been detected, therefore it is 'natural' for humans to engage in such a practice. Again, this argument does not hold up. Our intellect is what makes us superior to animals, so it would be naive to use examples from the animal kingdom to substantiate human practices. Because a male penguin mates with another male penguin does not mean homosexuality is correct. Such instances are anomalies. Even still, there are numerous things animals do which we would deem wrong, so we cannot extrapolate isolated instances to substantiate the practice of homosexuality.


This why the "nature" argument in relation to homosexuality is circular and pointless. If homosexuality is natural, then the retort is that we should not follow all natural things (as you are arguing); however, if homosexuality is not natural then the retort is that this makes it wrong as per the naturalistic fallacy.

Tolerating something and accepting that something is right are two different things.


You have yet to provide a convincing, substantiated argument as to why homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of man; therefore, the onus is on you to provide an argument as to why we should not accept it.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 35
Original post by Philbert
I really can't see how something that does not affect anyone other than the people in the relationship in any way could be considered "wrong".


Exactly.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 36
Woman become mechanics. Men become midwives. Women hang doors. Men Hoover up. So basically, in modern times, the fact that someone has a different set of tools in their pants doesn't limit their potential to do what they want - and be who they want.

So likewise, why does one's genitals have to govern who they are allowed to love? Just like it doesn't govern their jobs or their role within society.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underd0g
How would you then explain people who are bisexual?



Yeah but why is paedophilia different? Is paedophilia paedophilia because we say so? If a 17 yo has sex with a 15 yo is s/he a paedophile? Even still, some children mature much faster than others, so by the age of 13, some girls/boys may possess the physical shape of someone in their twenties. If they consent to sex with someone above 16, is that still paedophilia? If we do not understand why paedophiles commit the acts they do, does that make it unnatural? Where do we draw the line, if at all? As you might very well know, homosexuality was outlawed until not so long ago; will we be sitting here having the same argument about paedophilia in 100-200 years time?



This is not about whether I agree or not with homosexuality. I'm trying to separate the two issues. Morality is different. But saying homosexuality is right because it just "feels right" to the homosexuals is flimsy, loose, and quite frankly dangerous.



Perhaps, but the homosexuality is natural argument will linger on forever. I've seen proponents attempt to equate it with race, which is ludicrous.


To the bisexual thing - if homosexuality is genetic then we can say bisexuality is aswell.

Paedophilia is defined as 'sexual attraction to children' so I guess you could say the two are the same in the way that homosexuality is 'sexual attraction to a member of the same sex' - but morally they are completely different. Most of the time the feelings a paedophile has are neither reciprocated nor encouraged, so any action he or she takes is classed as sexual assault or rape.

I understand the point about it being loose however I do feel it has more backing than that. I don't see why it can't be equated with race - it's certainly a similar matter when it comes to rights. We are hardly ones to judge what's natural and not natural when it comes to things like this - as long as they have no effect on others (before you bring out the 'why are we allowed to judge paedophiles, cannibals etc argument).
Reply 38
Original post by Underd0g
What is the ultimate purpose of a penis? What is the ultimate purpose of a vagina? Anus? Pardon me for being so graphic, but if one looks at it from a graphic, physical perspective, the idea of a man being with a man and a woman being with a woman does not stand up. The sexual organs were created primarily for procreation, so how can homosexuality then be deemed correct?
things.
So you are saying that the purpose of the penis and vagina are for recreation, so I assume that you are against sex where the purpose isn't to make a child?




Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 39
How has the OP got 8 thumbs up?

The world we live in.

Latest