Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

The Strong Case Against Homosexuality... watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    *I realise what I shall say is highly contentious and emotive in today's social and political climate, but wish to exercise my free speech. I now offer a well-researched account...

    FIRSTLY, I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC... (pardon the cliché) BUT, I have gay friends!

    Most fundamentally, the survival of the human race is underpinned by the male-female sexual relationship, and thus homo-sexual relationships COULD be deemed "unproductive" because they can not naturally produce children. I am tolerant, but detest the way homosexuality is disproportionately promoted in our society, when clearly ageism and racism which are more significant problems are marginalised. In truth, homosexuals actually remain a small, but highly vociferous and very vocal group in soiety. Perhaps, though not the best example, Big Brother 5 best illustrates this disproportional attention directed towards the gays. Admittedly, such a "reality" show, should be microcosmic of society, but it almost seems that heterosecuals are in the minority, which is certainly unprecedented in British TV. I personally believe homosexuality to be unnatural for humans. Many people condone homosexuality in humans, because it is found amoung animals. Clearly, this argument is flawed. It would be fallacious to condone homosexuality among humans simply because it occurs in the animal kingdom... in doing so we would also condone incestuous relationships, because these proliferate amongst primates.

    Secondly, I do not suscribe to the "born gay" myth. There are numerous sociological studies, which provide empirical evidence that prove that it is the human environment, which OUTWEIGHS any other factor in determining sexual orientation. Accordingly, homosexuality is higher amoungst those in single-sexed institutions.

    No offence, but that's my view. Pick it to pieces.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AM1)
    FIRSTLY, I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC... (pardon the cliché) BUT, I have gay friends!
    were they gay (out) before you befriended them?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The start post here does not reflect the topic of the thread. Whereas the poster deals with whether homosexuals are overrepresented in society, the title of the thread sugests that the person has some sort of evidence sugesting homosexuality is a bad thing which one should atempt to minimalise or reduce. The only real argument against a liberal stance on homosexuality is the weak proposal that perhaps it could reduce the rate at which humans reproduce. I quote the original post:

    (Original post by am1)
    Most fundamentally, the survival of the human race is underpinned by the male-female sexual relationship, and thus homo-sexual relationships COULD be deemed "unproductive" because they can not naturally produce children.
    Now is this supposed to be the so called strong case against homosecuality. All I see here is a claim that a liberal stance on homosexuality could reduce the birth rate of society. Taken into consideration that if todays birthrate would remain constant, the earths population would rapidly increase beyond what is possible for the resources of the planet to provide food for this is a rather weak argument against homosexuality.

    The remainder of teh original posts deals with arguments people have made against untrue claims such as "Homosexuality does not occur among animals". These arguments are not frequently used as a justification for homosexuality, but is rather a correction of incorrect homophobic claims, thus trying to prove that these claims do not justify homosexuality is rather pointless as few peopel have ever claimed that they do so.

    All in all this post appears to give little reason for why homosexuality should be something to fear or be negative against. The only issue in this post worth to debate is the alleged overrepresentation of homosexuals in the media. This is however quite off-topic with respect to teh threads titlement.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AM1)
    Most fundamentally, the survival of the human race is underpinned by the male-female sexual relationship, and thus homo-sexual relationships COULD be deemed "unproductive" because they can not naturally produce children.
    Actually, to be precise the survival of the human race is dependent on the fertile male-female sexual relationship - and thus any relationship between people who are not fertile (either through natural or unnatural causes, such as medical treatment). So should we discard people who are infertile? If we really must revert to this idea of what nature intended, should men once again become the "hunter gatherer" and women become the home makers as de facto?

    (Original post by AM1)
    I am tolerant, but detest the way homosexuality is disproportionately promoted in our society, when clearly ageism and racism which are more significant problems are marginalised. In truth, homosexuals actually remain a small, but highly vociferous and very vocal group in soiety.
    I agree with you that ageism and sexism are very bad problems, but I wouldnt exactly say racism is an issue overseen in favour of homophobia - we have many, many government bodies looking at race relations, the Commission for Racial Equality being one, but I cant think of any looking at discrimination on the grounds of sexuality (I'm sure there are some, but nowhere near as prominent as the CfRE). And correct, ageism is an issue which is criminally understated in the media, but to blame people wanting to be rid of homophobia for that is absolutely absurd!!! We can aim to eliminate all forms of descrimination in society, not just pick-and-choose.

    (Original post by AM1)
    Perhaps, though not the best example, Big Brother 5 best illustrates this disproportional attention directed towards the gays. Admittedly, such a "reality" show, should be microcosmic of society, but it almost seems that heterosecuals are in the minority, which is certainly unprecedented in British TV.
    Not only is that not the best example, but is a terrible example! Have you actually seen BB?!? They're not trying to create a microcosm of society at all, they're trying to create television that the 18-30s want to watch. If that includes 3 homosexuals (two now have departed) then they will. If it meant a house full of homosexuals then they would. If it meant no homosexuals, then they would. Channel 4 are not trying to make a statement about the composition of modern society, but are simply trying to get as high ratings as possible.

    [QUOTE=AM1]I personally believe homosexuality to be unnatural for humans. Many people condone homosexuality in humans, because it is found amoung animals. Clearly, this argument is flawed. It would be fallacious to condone homosexuality among humans simply because it occurs in the animal kingdom... in doing so we would also condone incestuous relationships, because these proliferate amongst primates.[QUOTE]

    You'd be very hard pushed to find someone who condoned homosexuality simply because it occurs in nature. I condone homosexuality because I believe the core of human nature is for them to be free and prosperous in a harmonious society. Clearly homophobia doesnt fit in with this concept. Anyway, no-one believes we should simply copy what primates do, as anyone who did sincerely believe that would have to be rid of all their possessions and go live in the wild.

    (Original post by AM1)
    Secondly, I do not suscribe to the "born gay" myth. There are numerous sociological studies, which provide empirical evidence that prove that it is the human environment, which OUTWEIGHS any other factor in determining sexual orientation. Accordingly, homosexuality is higher amoungst those in single-sexed institutions.
    If homosexuality isnt something that someone is born with and is determined by external factors, then surely sexuality par se must be something molded by an individuals environment? In which case we cannot condemn the sexuality one chooses unless the evivronmental factors that cause an individual to choose that sexuality are undesirable in any way. I have a gay friend who was brought up very normally (mum, dad, two-up two-down house, suburban, state education, no serious traumas) and I cant think of anything objectionable about his upbringing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    Actually, to be precise the survival of the human race is dependent on the fertile male-female sexual relationship - and thus any relationship between people who are not fertile (either through natural or unnatural causes, such as medical treatment). So should we discard people who are infertile? If we really must revert to this idea of what nature intended, should men once again become the "hunter gatherer" and women become the home makers as de facto?



    I agree with you that ageism and sexism are very bad problems, but I wouldnt exactly say racism is an issue overseen in favour of homophobia - we have many, many government bodies looking at race relations, the Commission for Racial Equality being one, but I cant think of any looking at discrimination on the grounds of sexuality (I'm sure there are some, but nowhere near as prominent as the CfRE). And correct, ageism is an issue which is criminally understated in the media, but to blame people wanting to be rid of homophobia for that is absolutely absurd!!! We can aim to eliminate all forms of descrimination in society, not just pick-and-choose.



    Not only is that not the best example, but is a terrible example! Have you actually seen BB?!? They're not trying to create a microcosm of society at all, they're trying to create television that the 18-30s want to watch. If that includes 3 homosexuals (two now have departed) then they will. If it meant a house full of homosexuals then they would. If it meant no homosexuals, then they would. Channel 4 are not trying to make a statement about the composition of modern society, but are simply trying to get as high ratings as possible.



    If homosexuality isnt something that someone is born with and is determined by external factors, then surely sexuality par se must be something molded by an individuals environment? In which case we cannot condemn the sexuality one chooses unless the evivronmental factors that cause an individual to choose that sexuality are undesirable in any way. I have a gay friend who was brought up very normally (mum, dad, two-up two-down house, suburban, state education, no serious traumas) and I cant think of anything objectionable about his upbringing.
    You're on form!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AM1)
    *I realise what I shall say is highly contentious and emotive in today's social and political climate, but wish to exercise my free speech. I now offer a well-researched account...

    FIRSTLY, I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC... (pardon the cliché) BUT, I have gay friends!

    Most fundamentally, the survival of the human race is underpinned by the male-female sexual relationship, and thus homo-sexual relationships COULD be deemed "unproductive" because they can not naturally produce children. I am tolerant, but detest the way homosexuality is disproportionately promoted in our society, when clearly ageism and racism which are more significant problems are marginalised. In truth, homosexuals actually remain a small, but highly vociferous and very vocal group in soiety. Perhaps, though not the best example, Big Brother 5 best illustrates this disproportional attention directed towards the gays. Admittedly, such a "reality" show, should be microcosmic of society, but it almost seems that heterosecuals are in the minority, which is certainly unprecedented in British TV. I personally believe homosexuality to be unnatural for humans. Many people condone homosexuality in humans, because it is found amoung animals. Clearly, this argument is flawed. It would be fallacious to condone homosexuality among humans simply because it occurs in the animal kingdom... in doing so we would also condone incestuous relationships, because these proliferate amongst primates.

    Secondly, I do not suscribe to the "born gay" myth. There are numerous sociological studies, which provide empirical evidence that prove that it is the human environment, which OUTWEIGHS any other factor in determining sexual orientation. Accordingly, homosexuality is higher amoungst those in single-sexed institutions.

    No offence, but that's my view. Pick it to pieces.
    How is this a "case against homosexuality"?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    You're on form!
    have you changed in the past few months?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps we should all stop feeding the troll now.

    Let this thread slide down into obliviance where it belongs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    You're on form!
    haha i was thinking the same thing howard! awesome post, some rep for you kingslaw.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AM1)
    Accordingly, homosexuality is higher amoungst those in single-sexed institutions.
    whether it is higher or not, there will always be people who are homosexual, but were not subjected to the conditions that are considered to help cause it: surely if it was just a result of these environmental effects, you would only have homosexuals from a fixed demographic??? :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AM1)
    I am tolerant, but detest the way homosexuality is disproportionately promoted in our society, when clearly ageism and racism which are more significant problems are marginalised.
    Legislation has existed for decades that protects ethnic minorities and women, it is only very recently that gay rights legislation has come about and no where near on the same scale as the Race Relations Act or Sex Discrimination Act. Therefore, It is far far more acceptable to be black or female in our society than it is to be gay

    (Original post by AM1)
    Secondly, There are numerous sociological studies, which provide empirical evidence that prove that it is the human environment,
    Links would be nice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AM1)

    Secondly, I do not suscribe to the "born gay" myth. There are numerous sociological studies, which provide empirical evidence that prove that it is the human environment, which OUTWEIGHS any other factor in determining sexual orientation. Accordingly, homosexuality is higher amoungst those in single-sexed institutions.
    Will you not admit that there is a genetic factor, and that everyone is born with a different probability of becoming homosexual?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AM1)
    I now offer a well-researched account...
    Researched where? Please state your sources...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AM1)

    FIRSTLY, I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC... (pardon the cliché) BUT, I have gay friends!
    Why the big 'but'? If you aren't homophobic, then you don't mind gays, so why does that sentence have any need for a 'but'?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AM1)
    *I realise what I shall say is highly contentious and emotive in today's social and political climate, but wish to exercise my free speech. I now offer a well-researched account...

    FIRSTLY, I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC... (pardon the cliché) BUT, I have gay friends!

    Most fundamentally, the survival of the human race is underpinned by the male-female sexual relationship, and thus homo-sexual relationships COULD be deemed "unproductive" because they can not naturally produce children. I am tolerant, but detest the way homosexuality is disproportionately promoted in our society, when clearly ageism and racism which are more significant problems are marginalised. In truth, homosexuals actually remain a small, but highly vociferous and very vocal group in soiety. Perhaps, though not the best example, Big Brother 5 best illustrates this disproportional attention directed towards the gays. Admittedly, such a "reality" show, should be microcosmic of society, but it almost seems that heterosecuals are in the minority, which is certainly unprecedented in British TV. I personally believe homosexuality to be unnatural for humans. Many people condone homosexuality in humans, because it is found amoung animals. Clearly, this argument is flawed. It would be fallacious to condone homosexuality among humans simply because it occurs in the animal kingdom... in doing so we would also condone incestuous relationships, because these proliferate amongst primates.

    Secondly, I do not suscribe to the "born gay" myth. There are numerous sociological studies, which provide empirical evidence that prove that it is the human environment, which OUTWEIGHS any other factor in determining sexual orientation. Accordingly, homosexuality is higher amoungst those in single-sexed institutions.

    No offence, but that's my view. Pick it to pieces.

    Incest isn't a sexuality.

    Homosexuality remains constant, your ability to measure homosexuality relies entirely on how openly accepted homosexuality is. That's why these 'studies' seem to show that if you accept homosexuality it becomes more common. It's called a self fulfilling prophecy.

    Again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2404109.stm
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Legislation has existed for decades that protects ethnic minorities and women, it is only very recently that gay rights legislation has come about and no where near on the same scale as the Race Relations Act or Sex Discrimination Act. Therefore, It is far far more acceptable to be black or female in our society than it is to be gay
    This I feel is incorrect. Just because legislation is stronger for racial equality, doesn't mean it's more acceptable to be black than it is to be gay. For example, what if we had these identity cards and we used a 'sus' law for terrorists on the basis of religion. Would they be less acceptable then?

    So is it acceptable to kill someone in 1992 which resulted the victim to die which took 368 days? According to the legislation at the time, yes. Do you think this is right?

    Also legislation has influence over the upper chamber, so looking at legislation in such a manner is not 100% IMO.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AM1)
    *I realise what I shall say is highly contentious and emotive in today's social and political climate, but wish to exercise my free speech. I now offer a well-researched account...
    Sources?

    (Original post by AM1)
    Most fundamentally, the survival of the human race is underpinned by the male-female sexual relationship, and thus homo-sexual relationships COULD be deemed "unproductive" because they can not naturally produce children.
    Could? Obviously it HAS been deemed that by people with the same views as you.

    (Original post by AM1)
    I am tolerant
    You don't sound it.

    (Original post by AM1)
    ... detest the way homosexuality is disproportionately promoted in our society, when clearly ageism and racism which are more significant problems are marginalised.
    Promoted? Do you see advertisements on TV saying, "Become homosexual, it's the greatest thing on earth!" I think you meant 'emphasised'. And it's not promoted/emphasised/whatever you want to call it. It may be high up on the political egenda at the moment though. Just as racism has been previously. They are all serious issues, so of course, they will be 'promoted' more than other agendas at certain times.

    (Original post by AM1)
    In truth, homosexuals actually remain a small, but highly vociferous and very vocal group in society. Perhaps, though not the best example, Big Brother 5 best illustrates this disproportional attention directed towards the gays. Admittedly, such a "reality" show, should be microcosmic of society, but it almost seems that heterosexuals are in the minority, which is certainly unprecedented in British TV.
    Please explain how you get this view. I don't walk down the street and see gay couples kissing each other, I see heterosexual couples though. Whether this be just because of the area I live in or not I don't know.
    Oh, and how many transsexuals do you know? BB5 is created to get ratings, not to become a microscopic version of society as it is today.

    (Original post by AM1)
    Perhaps, though not the best example, Big Brother 5 best illustrates this disproportional attention directed towards the gays.
    That's a bit of a contradiction :rolleyes:

    (Original post by AM1)
    I personally believe homosexuality to be unnatural for humans. Many people condone homosexuality in humans, because it is found amoung animals. Clearly, this argument is flawed. It would be fallacious to condone homosexuality among humans simply because it occurs in the animal kingdom... in doing so we would also condone incestuous relationships, because these proliferate amongst primates.
    Erm... What? I'm not non-homophobic because there are examples of homosexual activity in the animal kingdom, I'm not homophobic because I don't see what the problem is.
    Primates don't have a sense of morals, or not that I know of. Incest between humans is often between an adult and an underage person, this is one reason why it is not acceptable. Homosexual activities are between consenting adults, there is a slight difference... I'll let you think about it for a while.

    (Original post by AM1)
    Secondly, I do not suscribe to the "born gay" myth. There are numerous sociological studies, which provide empirical evidence that prove that it is the human environment, which OUTWEIGHS any other factor in determining sexual orientation. Accordingly, homosexuality is higher amoungst those in single-sexed institutions.
    Again, sources? What studies?

    (That's quite a large first post...)

    P.S. I think your post has a fair amount of holes picked in it now...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you are right and homosexuality reduces breeding and is largely social in origin this could be just the solution we are looking for to reduce the problems of overpopulation. It should be actively encouraged. Perhaps the government could provide free homoerotic porn to schools or something?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    People seem to think of sexuality too much as one of two or three options, into which each person falls into one of the boxes. Is it not true that in reality, the case is much more of a sliding scale? Some would say that the idea of homo-, hetero- and bi-sexuality are simply invented notions rather than actual "conditions" (sorry, too tired to think of a better word).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AM1)
    *I realise what I shall say is highly contentious and emotive in today's social and political climate, but wish to exercise my free speech. I now offer a well-researched account...

    FIRSTLY, I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC... (pardon the cliché) BUT, I have gay friends!

    Most fundamentally, the survival of the human race is underpinned by the male-female sexual relationship, and thus homo-sexual relationships COULD be deemed "unproductive" because they can not naturally produce children. I am tolerant, but detest the way homosexuality is disproportionately promoted in our society, when clearly ageism and racism which are more significant problems are marginalised. In truth, homosexuals actually remain a small, but highly vociferous and very vocal group in soiety. Perhaps, though not the best example, Big Brother 5 best illustrates this disproportional attention directed towards the gays. Admittedly, such a "reality" show, should be microcosmic of society, but it almost seems that heterosecuals are in the minority, which is certainly unprecedented in British TV. I personally believe homosexuality to be unnatural for humans. Many people condone homosexuality in humans, because it is found amoung animals. Clearly, this argument is flawed. It would be fallacious to condone homosexuality among humans simply because it occurs in the animal kingdom... in doing so we would also condone incestuous relationships, because these proliferate amongst primates.

    Secondly, I do not suscribe to the "born gay" myth. There are numerous sociological studies, which provide empirical evidence that prove that it is the human environment, which OUTWEIGHS any other factor in determining sexual orientation. Accordingly, homosexuality is higher amoungst those in single-sexed institutions.

    No offence, but that's my view. Pick it to pieces.
    Not the strongest case I've seen.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
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.