Turn on thread page Beta

The Strong Case Against Homosexuality... watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Not the strongest case I've seen.
    Agreed...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ok, bored now. We've got two other threads exactly like this one. Let's let at least one of them slide to oblivion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Even if you did have a strong case against homosexuality it wouldn't stop people being gay? I don't see the point of this post! Am I missing something?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scottus_Mus)
    Even if you did have a strong case against homosexuality it wouldn't stop people being gay? I don't see the point of this post! Am I missing something?
    Yeah... it's pretty much pointless, don't worry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stumbleines)
    Ok, bored now. We've got two other threads exactly like this one. Let's let at least one of them slide to oblivion.
    Oh, but I liked my counter arguement
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by catinthehat)
    Oh, but I liked my counter arguement
    Contribute it to one of the other two threads.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stumbleines)
    Contribute it to one of the other two threads.
    I can't, I don't think... I'd have to change all of my references and everything, as it was mainly contradicting the original post. Damn.

    *thinks....*

    Unless... Hmmmm.... no, nevermind.
    Offline

    0
    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.
    So you believe that homosexuality is invalid because it does not result in offspring. What about oral sex? What about any form of foreplay? What about masturbation? Is engaging in all of these sexual activities invalid because they do not directly result in children? Does this mean that YOU will not engage in them because they do not produce offspring?

    (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.
    Give me a break. Homosexuality is hardly promoted, merely because promotion would not result in a naturally straight person "becoming" homosexual. Tolerance is promoted by an open-minded minority in today's society, and I feel this is very important. You feel that ageism and racism is a bigger problem than homophobia. Do so many teenagers want to commit suicide merely because of their age? No. Do so many teenagers want to and actually end up committing suicide due to having the feelings for the "wrong" sex in such a discriminatory society? Yes. Having said that, I believe racism should be discouraged in the exact same proportion as homophobia.

    (Original post by AM1)
    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.
    Black people probably form just as small a group in society, yet you deplore discrimination against them whilst saying homophobia is condemned far too much in today's society. Seems like double standards to me. Any show like Big Brother which shows people that homosexuality (and in this series, transexuality) exists and will not go away is good, in my opinion. The contestants were not chosen in order to form a representative cross-section of British society.

    (Original post by AM1)
    I personally believe homosexuality to be unnatural for humans.
    Maybe if you lived with it from day to day your opinion would be different. Really, you do sound like you've just come straight from the Nazi regime. You'll be saying that it's unnatural not to have blonde hair and blue eyes next. If you happened to have feelings for someone of the same gender as you then you would know that it is very natural. These people are not going to go away. Ever. Live with it.

    (Original post by AM1)
    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.
    Homosexuality amongst animals proves 100% that gay people's feelings are something very natural and that it is something beyond their control - animals would not have sex with another animal of the same gender due to a "whim". You say that if we condone homosexuality because it is found in the animal kingdom, then we should also condone incestuous relationships, as those are also found amongst animals. Does this extend to killing others and eating them, cannibalism, etc, because they are also found amongst animals?

    (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.
    In what way does this invalidate homosexuality?

    (Original post by AM1)
    No offence
    Rest assured, none was taken. It was quite laughable really to find someone with such 19th century views overcompensating for this by claiming that they're "liberal". You're straight, you claim you don't have a problem with gay people, so why are you debating this and in what way does the whole issue affect you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by catinthehat)
    I can't, I don't think... I'd have to change all of my references and everything, as it was mainly contradicting the original post. Damn.

    *thinks....*

    Unless... Hmmmm.... no, nevermind.
    Well, regardless, we know you made a great counter-argument, and so do you - that's more than enough.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stumbleines)
    Well, regardless, we know you made a great counter-argument, and so do you - that's more than enough.
    Awwwww, thank you!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    This I feel is incorrect. 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?

    Nope, i do not think this is comparable.

    Legislation passed in parliament is usually reflective of the social climate at the time of its passing. If we look at legislation being passed at the moment we find a lot of it related to the war on terror. Now, of course Britain has passed various terror acts over the decades, but the recent increase has been born out of a world events and a heightened paranoia culture, i do not believe some of the legislation would get through without this (especially legislation encroaching on human rights).

    The Race Discrimination Act and Sex Discrimination Acts were passed because the social climate permitted it, i do not believe either of these acts would have been passed in the 1950's. Also, section 28 a huge piece of anti gay legislation was only recently removed, why?, because society is slowly more willing to accept gays. However, gays are not protected by the law in the same way as most minorities, therefore they have less rights and in effect are 2nd class citizens. This is one of the reasons i feel it is more acceptable to be a woman or black than it is to be gay.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Nope, i do not think this is comparable.
    Explain why.

    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Legislation passed in parliament is usually reflective of the social climate at the time of its passing.
    Usually, not always. Parliament does not have time to make new laws, even those which are desparate to 'match' with the current state of society. So what would happen if we did not contemplate such moves against discrimination in our own domestic levels when the EU does? What's the issue with fox hunting? Most people probably want it banned but I have not yet seen it illegalised. If legislation was that reflective how come we're getting so far behind on cybercrime?

    (Original post by Dajo123)
    However, gays are not protected by the law in the same way as most minorities, therefore they have less rights and in effect are 2nd class citizens. This is one of the reasons i feel it is more acceptable to be a woman or black than it is to be gay.
    So your thoughts are tied with the laws so strictly in such a manner? So if they changed overnight by EU what would you do then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Explain why.
    Alot of laws are amended because the previous ones have created legal quagmires, this being one, I feel that the Sex Discrimination Acts and Race Relations Acts were drafted from scratch in order to plug a huge hole in the legal system and how it protects minorities.

    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    What's the issue with fox hunting? Most people probably want it banned but I have not yet seen it illegalised. If legislation was that reflective how come we're getting so far behind on cybercrime?
    Society seems split on this one, on the one hand people want to keep it as it provides many jobs, tradition etc. on the other hand it is seen as a blood sport. This is more of a country side dwellers vs city dwellers argument, as peoples opinions seem tied to where they live, there is not necessarily an overwhelming majority in society who want it banned or who don’t want it banned.

    There are a few proposals on cyber crime at present.

    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    So your thoughts are tied with the laws so strictly in such a manner? So if they changed overnight by EU what would you do then?
    No, i said this is one of the reasons it is less acceptable to be gay, there are a few others. The truth is i can walk down the street, call an Asian man a "Pa*i* and be arrested, if i call a gay guy a fagg*t the police are powerless to do anything. I can fire a pregnant women for being pregnant and be sued into bankruptcy, but if i do the same to a gay guy for being gay, nothing is likely to happen. To me this says that the law does not protect gays equally.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    There are a few proposals on cyber crime at present.
    Yet I have been told by people in the IT sector that they have been asking for updates but just not getting them.

    (Original post by Dajo123)
    if i call a gay guy a fagg*t the police are powerless to do anything.
    Not entirely sure about that. It might constitute a verbal assault. Besides if silence amounts to an assault, I can't see why fagg*t shouldn't. You will know next year for sure

    (Original post by Dajo123)
    I can fire a pregnant women for being pregnant and be sued into bankruptcy, but if i do the same to a gay guy for being gay, nothing is likely to happen. To me this says that the law does not protect gays equally.
    Not sure on this as employment law or human rights does not appeal to me to want to learn a lot of material on the matter. However, I can tell that I read a decision by the European Court of Human Rights that a rejection of a job, already employed or otherwise, is in breach of our treaty obligations. This was a case from Portugal. If the Council of Europe's website decides to work properly I will be able to tell you the name of the case

    You are right that the laws do not protect homosexuals enough as other minorities, which I never disputed. But there is a saying about the law - the law's an arse!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    the law's an arse!
    A very smelly and hairy one at times.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Does anybody else think it is about time to call a moratorium on threads about homosexuality? No matter what the intent of the original poster is, it always seems to end up as:

    A: Homosexuality isn't natural, normal, useful etc.

    B: Yes it is. Shut up you homophobe.

    A: OH EMM GEE I am not a homophobe. SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE GAY!!!!! All I'm saying is that...

    B: Yes it is. Evidence.

    A: No it isn't. Evidence.

    Descent into argument.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Yes and if they want to argue bout it then PM each other
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calamity jane)
    Yes and if they want to argue bout it then PM each other
    not to be picky or anythin, but why you reply to that when it was said 2 weeks ago? just bringing the thread up the list again?... :rolleyes:
    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...
    What research have you exactly conducted on this? You don't provide any references. Had you made any research, you should have indicated your sources.
    It looks to me as though you merely stated your opinion. That's fine, but don't pretend it's more than just your opinion.
    FIRSTLY, I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC... (pardon the cliché) BUT, I have gay friends!
    That statement is not coherent.
    Even though you don't hate gays, you've got gay friends... That doesn't make sense. If you were homophobic, you wouldn't have gay friends. Since you're not homophobic, it is perfectly normal for you to have gay friends. Therefore, the word "but" renders your statement absurd.


    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.
    Living a life of chastity, is also "unproductive" from a biological point of view. Does that for instance justify a case against priesthood?!
    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.
    I'm not quite sure about that. The discrimination of homosexuals in our society (and even more so in many other societies in the world; eg those in Islamic theocracies) is just as bad as racism. As for ageism... You rarely hear about someone getting beaten up or lynched just for being old.

    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.
    If your account was so well-researched, you would not have to rely on your personal beliefs on such a central point to your case...
    You fail to provide any justification for your belief. You merely attempt to refute one argument against your belief, but that does not constitute a justification.

    1) If homosexuality was unnatural, than it would have a source external to "nature". I wonder why that would be.
    If a person has a homosexual drive, that sounds pretty natural to me. It certainly can't be explained by a freak genetic mutation, since so many people are homosexual.
    Homosexuality among humans has always existed. There is no reason for it not to be natural.

    2) Even if it wasn't natural, that would not automatically make it morally wrong. Your argument constitute a naturalistic fallacy.

    Another example for such a naturalistic fallacy is this:
    "According to the Theory of Evolution, the best creatures will survive. Therefore we shouldn't make special efforts to feed the poor. If they can't survive on their own, that just means they aren't as good as we are."

    (Source:http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thomps...turalistic.asp)

    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.
    As stated above, this is does not justify your argument.

    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.
    Provide sources please. I would like to know about those "numerous sociological studies". I have heard about studies concluding exactly the opposite. Whom are we to believe, unless people provide sources?
    No offence, but that's my view. Pick it to pieces.
    In all the above, I did not try to make the opposite case to yours. It would have taken proper research and more time.
    However, I did try to show that your premisses were often unfounded and that many of your arguments were flawed.

    Your "well-researched" account can certainly not be considered a "strong case against homosexuality".
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.