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

How has homosexuality harmed the countries where it is accepted? Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    If you think something should be banned, disapproved of or shunned, it generally should cause some harm to warrant such a response.

    If you are of the view that homosexuality should be banned, disapproved of or shunned, what damage does homosexuality cause to countries where it is accepted compared to countries where it is banned, disapproved of or shunned?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    If you think something should be banned, disapproved of or shunned, it generally should cause some harm to warrant such a response.

    If you are of the view that homosexuality should be banned, disapproved of or shunned, what damage does homosexuality cause to countries where it is accepted compared to countries where it is banned, disapproved of or shunned?
    Ohhhhhhhhhh, good question. Watching this thread. :yep: Will be interesting.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    "Because god says so."
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It has not harmed nobody ...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    inb4 someone claims gays created aids or that they destroy families...some people will make up anything to justify their views.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'll give you a debate if you want, even if the views I express are not mine -

    Firstly, you assume that certain acts are only banned (or should be banned) because they cause harm. However, this is demonstrably not true. Binge drinking, binge eating and boxing all involve activities which may cause some harm, yet they are not banned.

    However, some acts which do not cause harm are banned, such as marijuana, solicitation, or bringing Cubans into America.

    Therefore, it is a fallacy to generalize and say that certain acts are only banned for they will cause harm which is not true.


    In regards to why some countries (mainly Islamic) disapprove of homosexuality, they feel such relationships serve no purpose other than to fulfill carnal pleasures, a situation they find deploring because everyone should be concentrating on accumulating enough good deeds to go to Heaven. Whilst satisfying one's pleasures may also be factor in heterosexual relationships, the fact that it may lead to something greater (i.e: a child) is something that Islam considers satisfactory for the engagement of such a relationship.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I'll give you a debate if you want, even if the views I express are not mine -

    Firstly, you assume that certain acts are only banned (or should be banned) because they cause harm. However, this is demonstrably not true. Binge drinking, binge eating and boxing all involve activities which may cause some harm, yet they are not banned.

    However, some acts which do not cause harm are banned, such as marijuana, solicitation, or bringing Cubans into America.

    Therefore, it is a fallacy to generalize and say that certain acts are only banned for they will cause harm which is not true.
    You will see I said "generally", and I don't care if you think it's a fallacy; that's the premise of the thread.

    In regards to why some countries (mainly Islamic) disapprove of homosexuality, they feel such relationships serve no purpose other than to fulfill carnal pleasures, a situation they find deploring because everyone should be concentrating on accumulating enough good deeds to go to Heaven. Whilst satisfying one's pleasures may also be factor in heterosexual relationships, the fact that it may lead to something greater (i.e: a child) is something that Islam considers satisfactory for the engagement of such a relationship.
    That is pure subjective "harm".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    You will see I said "generally", and I don't particularly care if you think it's a fallacy; that's the premise of the thread.

    That is pure subjective "harm".
    If we must counteract the prejudices and bigoted views that some people hold, then we must understand where such views originate from and simply because an argument has been put forward, one which you seem you are unable to counter, does not mean that you are entitled to throw a fit.


    Even though a strawman was presented (and it is a strawman because no-one has argued it such), it was obliterated through logical reasoning and references to where the premise simply doesn't hold true.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  12715556_1239773246051060_5038181009212989213_n.jpg
Views: 49
Size:  18.5 KBDis gonna be good.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I am pro-LGBT but maybe they might see it as the same way Incest is banned?

    Incest is not necessarily harmful, the only possible harm is a slightly increased risk of their being a problem with a child, however we live in an age with contraception yet it is still illegal. If someone asked me to vote to make incest legal, despite knowing it causes no harm I am still morally against it for almost no reason than I find it slightly repulsive.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    If we must counteract the prejudices and bigoted views that some people hold, then we must understand where such views originate from and simply because an argument has been put forward, one which you seem you are unable to counter, does not mean that you are entitled to throw a fit.

    Even though a strawman was presented (and it is a strawman because no-one has argued it such), it was obliterated through logical reasoning and references to where the premise simply doesn't hold true.
    Your narrative-based objections have been noted, but I still want to hear people's views based on the premise of the thread.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Glitter.

    Homosexuals are known for their excessive use of glitter. That stuff gets everywhere and is difficult to get rid of. Clearly an environmental pollutant.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Being queer myself, a lot of the arguments that have been thrown at me have centered around religion (who would have guessed). However, when I think about it, I believe there is a fear (and direct correlation) between the amount of out LGBT individuals and a presence of irreligion in a society. So it makes me think that the 'damage' that is done to a country by legalising homosexuality comes from the step back from religious and traditional values.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Although homosexuality (the attraction) has never physically harmed anyone, encouragement and promotion of homosexuality (the behavior /action and perception) can influence one's mind and change one's culture drastically.

    Since homosexuality has become the "norm" round here and there, people might be tempted to fool around in it , it isn't a taboo anymore to see two actors or two actresses kissing on television to portray gay couples, or just throw a little homosexuality for the fun of it. Taboo is no longer gay marriage or the topic of homosexuality in schools. I have nothing against gay people and all for respect but the acceptance of homosexuality has turned society a 180 degrees around (or is it 360 degrees? I don't know.)

    I guess those countries don't want to change their society or culture or see homosexuality shown publicly?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I believe 911 was an LBGT conspiracy.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Firstly, you assume that certain acts are only banned (or should be banned) because they cause harm. However, this is demonstrably not true. Binge drinking, binge eating and boxing all involve activities which may cause some harm, yet they are not banned.
    Just being a little pedantic here (just want to help everyone's deduction skills, since this is a student forum), but bold has nothing to do with what you want to deduce.

    The statement you want to disprove is this: An act is banned means that the act is harmful (i.e. all banned acts are harmful)
    The argument in bold is this: Some acts that are harmful are not banned

    However, some acts which do not cause harm are banned, such as marijuana, solicitation, or bringing Cubans into America.Therefore, it is a fallacy to generalize and say that certain acts are only banned for they will cause harm which is not true.
    Correct, since you have demonstrated the existence of banned acts that are not harmful (although e.g. bringing Cubans into America may be seen as a security risk)
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.