What objective harm does homosexuality cause to society?
Scroll to see replies
It doesn't.
Humanity is not sufficiently endangered to make the lack of offspring even a vague problem.
Discrimination against homosexuals, due to their homosexuality, is never rationally justified, it really is rather pathetic.
Humanity is not sufficiently endangered to make the lack of offspring even a vague problem.
Discrimination against homosexuals, due to their homosexuality, is never rationally justified, it really is rather pathetic.
Original post by Meany Pie
I quite like him 
At least he has his five A-levels
Reduced birth rate.
Being middle class should also really be considered a sin.
Being middle class should also really be considered a sin.
Original post by IamJacksContempt
Exactly, a higher likelihood of HIV being spread between gay men compared to straight couples of gay women. How on earth did you decipher that as an increase in the number of gay people?
Are you genuinely retarded??
Or do you have aids? That why you're so offended?
Are you genuinely retarded??
Or do you have aids? That why you're so offended?
There's actually been a decrease of HIV infections in the gay male population of 40%. Plus with tablets like prEP HIV can be significantly reduced even further.
Earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions... and I'm pretty sure gay marriage is causing climate change.
Objectively, absolutely no harm.
It's worth noting here that a) any impact on birth rate is normal due to the low percentage of LGBT people, and b) reduced birth rate isn't objectively harmful; I'm fact it could be argued to have positives too, given overpopulation is an increasing issue.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by BigYoSpeck
Reduced birth rate.
It's worth noting here that a) any impact on birth rate is normal due to the low percentage of LGBT people, and b) reduced birth rate isn't objectively harmful; I'm fact it could be argued to have positives too, given overpopulation is an increasing issue.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Iridocyclitis
Subjective harms are abound: "it's disgusting", "my religion tells me it is wrong", etc.
I can't think of any objective harms, however.
I can't think of any objective harms, however.
What do you mean by "objective harms"? This sounds to me like an oxymoron, because the concepts of harm and benefit, desirability and undesirability are by their nature subjective. Perhaps you mean "tangible harms"?
It can be noted that male homosexual sex carries a much greater risk of transferring and spreading (sometimes deadly) STI's, as well as causing physical damage to body parts which are not designed for sexual activity.
If everyone followed the rules of the major religions regarding sexual activity, HIV/AIDS and the like would be far less of a problem than they are today.
Original post by Loopy91
It doesn't
I have a theory that homosexuality is probably nature's way of population control. I know gay people can have biological kids, but they're less likely to.
I have a theory that homosexuality is probably nature's way of population control. I know gay people can have biological kids, but they're less likely to.
What makes you think that nature would even have a method of population control?
The earth has never been so saturated with life so as to require its species to evolve population control mechanisms. Further, natural selection always means that it is those who are more likely to reproduce who will find their genes and hereditary traits more prevalent in future generations.
The only reason why population control would be necessary would be if the resources required to sustain life became insufficient. And even if that did ever happen, it would lead to a limit or reduction in population on its own, rather than the species itself needing to develop such mechanisms itself.
Original post by tazarooni89
What makes you think that nature would even have a method of population control?
The earth has never been so saturated with life so as to require its species to evolve population control mechanisms. Further, natural selection always means that it is those who are more likely to reproduce who will find their genes and hereditary traits more prevalent in future generations.
The only reason why population control would be necessary would be if the resources required to sustain life became insufficient. And even if that did ever happen, it would lead to a limit or reduction in population on its own, rather than the species itself needing to develop such mechanisms itself.
The earth has never been so saturated with life so as to require its species to evolve population control mechanisms. Further, natural selection always means that it is those who are more likely to reproduce who will find their genes and hereditary traits more prevalent in future generations.
The only reason why population control would be necessary would be if the resources required to sustain life became insufficient. And even if that did ever happen, it would lead to a limit or reduction in population on its own, rather than the species itself needing to develop such mechanisms itself.
It's just a theory, doesn't mean I think it's definitely true! I'm not a scientist, I don't actually know, nor do I care lol
Completely none. This is why I really struggle to respect someone's opinion if it's homophobic.
Original post by Loopy91
It's just a theory, doesn't mean I think it's definitely true! I'm not a scientist, I don't actually know, nor do I care lol
The idea of homosexuality as a form of population control is a very common theory that laypeople subscribe to, I've come across it many times before.
I thought I'd post the following video from Richard Dawkins who eloquently debunks that theory.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQlw4PpDs4o
Even if you're not particularly interested, I think there are some people who will be - so I'm posting it for people's general benefit.
isn't always effective...
Original post by angelike1
condoms
STI checks
STI checks
Original post by tazarooni89
What do you mean by "objective harms"? This sounds to me like an oxymoron, because the concepts of harm and benefit, desirability and undesirability are by their nature subjective. Perhaps you mean "tangible harms"?
OK fine, although sounds like semantics to me.
It can be noted that male homosexual sex carries a much greater risk of transferring and spreading (sometimes deadly) STI's
You mean anal sex without protection? An act that is not exclusive to homosexuality. That's like saying heterosexuality causes tangible harm to society because some heterosexuals engage in anal sex without a condom.
as well as causing physical damage to body parts which are not designed for sexual activity.
'Designed' suggests a creator.
By that logic, our hands are not 'designed' to type on keyboards, hence repetitive strain injury, etc. Does that mean computers cause tangible harm to society?
If everyone followed the rules of the major religions regarding sexual activity, HIV/AIDS and the like would be far less of a problem than they are today.
Lol, rules like not using protection? That's worked out really well in Africa.
(edited 6 years ago)
Society becomes too fabulous
Original post by Iridocyclitis
You mean anal sex without protection? An act that is not exclusive to homosexuality. That's like saying heterosexuality causes tangible harm to society because some heterosexuals engage in anal sex without a condom.
I don't think anyone suggests that homosexuality as an orientation would cause any harm to society. Rather it would be the specific sexual activity that causes harm.
Obviously if heterosexual couples engaged in the same acts then it would cause harm as well. Note that religions tend to prohibit anal sex (or "sodomy"
for heterosexual couples too.'Designed' suggests a creator.
I wouldn't necessarily agree. Even if you don't believe in a creator, it's not hard to understand the concept of dolphins being (perhaps metaphorically) "designed" to live in water than on land, or humans being "designed" to walk on their feet rather than on their hands upside down. Even though these unorthodox behaviours could be performed, they are suboptimal given the physical nature of these creatures.
Similarly, an anus is not physically suited to sexual activity, and physical damage and infection can result from trying to use it for that.
By that logic, our hands are not 'designed' to type on keyboards, hence repetitive strain injury, etc. Does that mean computers cause tangible harm to society?
This doesn't seem like a relevant point to me. Keyboards are designed for hands, not vice-versa.
If the use of keyboards led to the spread of deadly diseases or significant physical damage to our bodies then yes, I would say it causes harm.
Lol, rules like not using protection? That's worked out really well in Africa.
I, as a Muslim, am completely in favour of the use of protection.
However, if (as Islam requires), sex only ever took place between a husband and wife, even if nobody used protection, HIV and AIDS would be contained much more easily and probably die out rapidly, rather than spreading.
(edited 6 years ago)
Homosexuality spreads diseases like HIV
Humans are not meant to be homosexual that's why women need men's sperm to bare a child
Homosexuality is a gateway to a world of political correctness
Posted from TSR Mobile
Humans are not meant to be homosexual that's why women need men's sperm to bare a child
Homosexuality is a gateway to a world of political correctness
Posted from TSR Mobile
About all I can think of is hemorrhoids, and that only affects themselves as indiviual members of society (not to mention the condition is not exclusive to homosexuals), so it's all good.
When you see that one of the aims of inventing religions is to get people to procreate lots then it makes sense why they'd also demonise homosexuality (and masturbation too). We've had a long time under religious rule (and it's still very influential today) so some things have stuck.
Original post by _Fergo
The global population has increased by 5 whole billion people, nearing 6 now, in less than 100 years. It's predicted to go up to 10 billion by 2050.
What are you even talking about? Are you content with how half the world, in absolute and relative poverty, live now?
What are you even talking about? Are you content with how half the world, in absolute and relative poverty, live now?
The population of the world could fit in California, so there isn't a problem with population growth per se.
What you're talking bout is inequality of rich and poor which population size has little to do with, even when the population was at it was 100 years ago, inequality still existed...
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
