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

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    No, I'm asking for support of something you appeared to be trying to state as fact. I take it we can agree that's not the case?

    It actually depends on what form of representation you're asking about - sheer numbers, or the number of shows each are represented in?
    When something is anecdotal it surely is not a fact, is it?

    The form of representation that expresses and pushes religous people's image, consideration and issues on TV in a non-critical way.

    So which do you think is more represented on TV? LGBT or religious people?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PerhapsPhysio)
    I think what's most confusing is why someone wouldn't support two PEOPLE in a relationship.

    Ignore biological sex for a moment - biological sex doesn't define who a person is. Once you recognise that it goes to a person loving another person/a person engaging in sexual relations with another person. Literally NO difference between homosexual or heterosexual relationships.
    Just to test you logic.

    Would you support a brother and sister in a relationship?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    Just to test you logic.

    Would you support a brother and sister in a relationship?
    Fair point! Problem is, I'm the type of person who really doesn't care what other people do as long as it isn't detrimental to themselves, their partner, society etc. If someone is happy and nobody is being hurt then why not? For example, I would not support an adult and a child in a relationship even if both were 'happy', because clearly a child would be at a different psychological and sociological stage to their counterpart which obviously underlines obvious abuse there.

    A brother and a sister though? There is vast evidence to show that incest relationships can lead to extreme mutations in genetics if to reproduce, which would obviously be cruel to said hypothetical child. Obviously same-sex couples aren't able to reproduce without the use of external means so I don't consider those two classifications comparable in that stance. Also, assuming both parties of that same-sex couple were of legal age then I still don't see a reason to discriminate against them for it.

    My question to you is - why is it wrong if siblings were to enter a relationship together? A huge majority of people who don't support homosexual relationships are of a religion (Catholic/Christianity/Jewish etc.) where the Holy Book literally states that a Mother Son relationship produced mankind (Genesis). It's a sociological construction that incest should be frowned upon. It isn't 'fact'.

    I would have much more of a problem with a heterosexual, adult couple where one party wasn't happy (think abuse etc.) than those other scenarios discussed where both parties are consensually happy.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PerhapsPhysio)
    Fair point! Problem is, I'm the type of person who really doesn't care what other people do as long as it isn't detrimental to themselves, their partner, society etc. If someone is happy and nobody is being hurt then why not? For example, I would not support an adult and a child in a relationship even if both were 'happy', because clearly a child would be at a different psychological and sociological stage to their counterpart which obviously underlines obvious abuse there.

    A brother and a sister though? There is vast evidence to show that incest relationships can lead to extreme mutations in genetics if to reproduce, which would obviously be cruel to said hypothetical child. Obviously same-sex couples aren't able to reproduce without the use of external means so I don't consider those two classifications comparable in that stance. Also, assuming both parties of that same-sex couple were of legal age then I still don't see a reason to discriminate against them for it.

    My question to you is - why is it wrong if siblings were to enter a relationship together? A huge majority of people who don't support homosexual relationships are of a religion (Catholic/Christianity/Jewish etc.) where the Holy Book literally states that a Mother Son relationship produced mankind (Genesis). It's a sociological construction that incest should be frowned upon. It isn't 'fact'.

    I would have much more of a problem with a heterosexual, adult couple where one party wasn't happy (think abuse etc.) than those other scenarios discussed* where both parties are consensually happy.
    *EDIT: (apart from the adult/child relationship OBVIOUSLY. Just thought I'd make that extra clear haha)
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PerhapsPhysio)
    A brother and a sister though? There is vast evidence to show that incest relationships can lead to extreme mutations in genetics if to reproduce, which would obviously be cruel to said hypothetical child. Obviously same-sex couples aren't able to reproduce without the use of external means so I don't consider those two classifications comparable in that stance. Also, assuming both parties of that same-sex couple were of legal age then I still don't see a reason to discriminate against them for it.

    My question to you is - why is it wrong if siblings were to enter a relationship together? A huge majority of people who don't support homosexual relationships are of a religion (Catholic/Christianity/Jewish etc.) where the Holy Book literally states that a Mother Son relationship produced mankind (Genesis). It's a sociological construction that incest should be frowned upon. It isn't 'fact'.

    I would have much more of a problem with a heterosexual, adult couple where one party wasn't happy (think abuse etc.) than those other scenarios discussed where both parties are consensually happy.
    The highlighted is not true in its entirety.

    Your summarisation suggests you lack full understanding of that claim.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    The highlighted is not true in its entirety.
    well i mean they were close to truth, since incestuous relationships can lead to the expression of recessive, damaging genes that would usually be kept as dormant with better genetic variation. they just worded it badly.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    The highlighted is not true in its entirety.

    Your summarisation suggests you lack full understanding of that claim.
    Not even science is 'true in its entirety'. I said CAN lead. Nothing is fact and set in stone when we don't even know how the world/universe we live in was formed. It's broadly covered in medical and biological science literature that incest couples have much higher chances of facing fetal mutation. Just explore academic and medical journals!

    Essentially a useless argument.

    Once you go down the road you just tried to go down that opens up not only biological and sociological but philosophical debate. I don't understand why people need to confuse the simple fact that its wrong to discriminate against someone for what biological sex/gender gets them horny - or perhaps doesn't? Do homophobic people also believe that a-sexual person's are a category that should be discriminated against also? Neither sexual orientation is hurting anyone. People who are homophobic can't explain why it actually bothers them.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thetoebeans)
    well i mean they were close to truth, since incestuous relationships can lead to the expression of recessive, damaging genes that would usually be kept as dormant with better genetic variation. they just worded it badly.
    That would not necessarily happen or is unlikely to happen if a sister and brother are in a relationship.

    It takes several generation of incestuous marriages before the risk is sufficient present.

    Even at that, the risk is still far far lower than many hereditary diseases.

    So if we can allow people who are carriers of hereditary diseases the freedom to marry and procreate, what gives us the grounds to stop incestous relationships apart from "bigotry"?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PerhapsPhysio)
    Not even science is 'true in its entirety'. I said CAN lead. Nothing is fact and set in stone when we don't even know how the world/universe we live in was formed. It's broadly covered in medical and biological science literature that incest couples have much higher chances of facing fetal mutation. Just explore academic and medical journals!

    Essentially a useless argument.

    Once you go down the road you just tried to go down that opens up not only biological and sociological but philosophical debate. I don't understand why people need to confuse the simple fact that its wrong to discriminate against someone for what biological sex/gender gets them horny - or perhaps doesn't? Do homophobic people also believe that a-sexual person's are a category that should be discriminated against also? Neither sexual orientation is hurting anyone. People who are homophobic can't explain why it actually bothers them.
    Read my last post above and respond.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    That would not necessarily happen or is likely to happen if a sister and brother are in a relationship.

    It takes several generation incestuous marriages before the risk is sufficient.

    Even at that, the risk is still far far lower than many hereditary diseases.

    So if we can allow people who are carriers of hereditary the freedom to marry and pro-create, what gives us the grounds to stop incestous relationships apart from "bigotry"?
    it wouldn't necessarily happen but the chances of it happening would generally be higher, so why would anyone take the risk in the first place?

    also what does this have to do with gay people? like gay people actually have kids unless they either adopt or use IVF/surrogates, and unless it's an incestuous gay relationship there's still genetic diversity???
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thetoebeans)
    it wouldn't necessarily happen but the chances of it happening would generally be higher, so why would anyone take the risk in the first place?

    also what does this have to do with gay people? like gay people actually have kids unless they either adopt or use IVF/surrogates, and unless it's an incestuous gay relationship there's still genetic diversity???
    No the chances of if is virtually zilt, zero, null except it happens over a few generations.

    It is far far far less of a risk than people with hereditary issues procreating.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emerald777O)
    If a Muslim said this..... damn
    What u tryna say!!! Oh yeh so its not okay to be against the homosexual community but then u go and judge?!?!
    im not muslim, but i think thts kinda sly...
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    When something is anecdotal it surely is not a fact, is it?

    The form of representation that expresses and pushes religous people's image, consideration and issues on TV in a non-critical way.

    So which do you think is more represented on TV? LGBT or religious people?
    You only established it as anecdotal in your previous post, however, not in the initial one.

    That doesn't answer my question - representation in number of people, or in number of shows? Assuming positive representation within each.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    You only established it as anecdotal in your previous post, however, not in the initial one.

    That doesn't answer my question - representation in number of people, or in number of shows? Assuming positive representation within each.
    Well, if you really insist on going that way, take the liberty to answer all three.

    Which do you think is more represented on TV? LGBT or religious people?

    1) In the number of people.

    2) In the number of shows.

    3) In the form of representation that expresses and pushes the community's image, consideration and issues on TV in a non-critical way.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Texxers)
    Honestly, I don't see why people actually support the LGBT community. I don't see why it's so frowned upon for me to express my opinions on this issue. Just wanted to see what other TSR members thought of it..

    And no I don't hide myself under Anon ever when it comes to controversial topics.
    I support it cos you shouldn't be discriminated for being yourself. love is love. Supporting it is your choice, no worries😅
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Texxers)
    Honestly, I don't see why people actually support the LGBT community. I don't see why it's so frowned upon for me to express my opinions on this issue. Just wanted to see what other TSR members thought of it..

    And no I don't hide myself under Anon ever
    when it comes to controversial topics.
    Because there is no reason to be against them! It's just a group of normal people who love someone different than you do.... nothing they do harms or affects you in your him, at school, at work.... if you don't like it look away! But it's literally a group of people who love other people and they deserve our respect just as they respect you for loving someone different
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's ignorant to believe that you're opinion will actually change homosexuality. People are gay, and they have been for a very very long time. The sooner people get over it the better.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    Well, if you really insist on going that way, take the liberty to answer all three.

    Which do you think is more represented on TV? LGBT or religious people?

    1) In the number of people.

    2) In the number of shows.

    3) In the form of representation that expresses and pushes the community's image, consideration and issues on TV in a non-critical way.
    Religious people have been overrepresented for thousands of years for simply no good reason.Things are finally going the other way.God has never been observed by anyone in the entire history of humanity.Gay people however definitely exist. I can show you a gay person.Show me god and then maybe I'll have time for religious people.Until then I couldn't care less if someone insults someones silly beliefs in magic and superstition.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Theres no reason to be homophobic. Who was it in the first place that decided men and women were attracted to each other? There are no rules or laws when it comes to attraction. Attraction to any human is perfectly fine no matter what gender they are
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    No the chances of if is virtually zilt, zero, null except it happens over a few generations.

    It is far far far less of a risk than people with hereditary issues procreating.
    that statement is inherently false. literally anyone who even has the basic understanding of genes from GCSE understands that there is a significantly higher chance of recessive alleles being expressed if the parents both have one copy of the allele (which is much more likely to be the case if the parents are from the same parents, as there is less genetic diversity).

    please read this before continuing to talk to me

    also please explain why you're defending incest when it has literally nothing to do homosexuality? like.... how is that helping ur homophobic argument lmfao
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.