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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PerhapsPhysio)
    I think what's most confusing is why someone wouldn't support two PEOPLE in a relationship.


    A combination of one's immediate environment [views parents/siblings hold when growing up], opinions friends hold ... and opinions shared by others of that persons culture in general is what most influences a persons attitudes towards this issue..

    actually I have noticed a correlation between a persons views on classic gender roles and their opinions regarding homosexuality


    The stronger the belief in typical gender roles the more likely they are not to "support" it

    The less belief they have in typical gender roles the more likely they are to "support" it

    UK society see's woman equal to men, and is trying to close this alleged pay gap, ..women can also do everything a man can. In fact I'd go as far and say women are encouraged to do everything a man can.. The UK in general welcomes homosexuality.

    If we look at countries which are not in favour of homosexuality ..and those that punish it by lashes or death you tend to find the occupants hold extremely traditional gender values on male and female behavior.

    in the UK for example, you will find a higher amount of white english people in favour of homosexuality than brown british muslims. Brown british muslims have more traditional gender roles ..so as a result a greater proportion of them will be against homosexuality.

    and a quick google search reveals half of british muslims think homosexuality should be illegal

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ity-sharia-law


    I hope that answers your query.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with you, we’re coming to an age where being gay is the normal!
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Are they affecting your daily life, if so then you can hate them if you want but if they don't then why hate them?

    I don't know any gay people and so they don't affect my daily life so I don't hate them. Even if I knew a gay person I wouldn't hate them either.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    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.
    Another irrelevant and illogical off piste point.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thetoebeans)
    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
    Some of you really need to read carefully and not rush to spew your dogma at all cost.

    There is no place I have defended incest or even related it to homosexuality. If you read without you dogmatic aim, you would see how the incest issue came up.

    As for your link, I suggest you too read this:

    https://www.larasig.com/node/2020

    http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/5...birth-defects/

    They suggest far lower percentages.

    Do you know the possibility of many West African couples (unrelated) with both AS genotype having a Sickle Cell baby? ..................25%

    Are we going to legislate that they should not marry each other or procreate?

    What are the chances of passing on a lot of hereditary diseases? .............50%.

    https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/inher...riskassessment

    Are we going to say it is illegal for them to marry and procreate?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Texxers)
    So I'm abnormal for having an opinion that's different to the average user on TSR?
    No, we all have our own opinions but what is normal? Also who said that we can't love whoever we want? People have to defend themselves because even in this day and age members of the LGBT+ community get discriminated against. And whats so wrong about them? What difference does it make to the world if people are members of the LGBT+ community??
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peterbokor)
    we’re coming to an age where being gay is the normal!
    I mean we're not, LGT+ are still very much a minority (I'm leaving out the B since you can easily argue either way as to whether most people are bi to some degree depending on how you define bisexual).

    If you actually mean becoming normal (very different from being the norm), then Yes, and?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    There is no place I have defended incest or even related it to homosexuality. If you read without your dogmatic aim, you would see how the incest issue came up.
    you initially compared incestual relationships to gay relationships when "testing" PerhapsPhysio's statement in which they said "I think what's most confusing is why someone wouldn't support two PEOPLE in a relationship". clearly you were clearly expecting them to say that they disagree with incest and then ask what makes homosexuality so different, despite the fact the two things are incomparable.

    also, you asked them if they would consider a "brother and sister" in a relationship. if you actually read your sources, they would be classed as "first degree", meaning they share 1/2 of their genes. this would give a 25% interbreeding coefficient, a 31.4% chance of death/severe defect and a 11.2-6.8% chance of a significant birth defect, if i read your sources correctly. of course the interbreeding coefficient decreases as they move further away in the family tree but your own example suggests a first degree relationship.

    also thanks for clarifying that your other example is unrelated, that really does spare me bothering to respond to it ^_^
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thetoebeans)
    you initially compared incestual relationships to gay relationships when "testing" PerhapsPhysio's statement in which they said "I think what's most confusing is why someone wouldn't support two PEOPLE in a relationship". clearly you were clearly expecting them to say that they disagree with incest and then ask what makes homosexuality so different, despite the fact the two things are incomparable.

    also, you asked them if they would consider a "brother and sister" in a relationship. if you actually read your sources, they would be classed as "first degree", meaning they share 1/2 of their genes. this would give a 25% interbreeding coefficient, a 31.4% chance of death/severe defect and a 11.2-6.8% chance of a significant birth defect, if i read your sources correctly. of course the interbreeding coefficient decreases as they move further away in the family tree but your own example suggests a first degree relationship.

    also thanks for clarifying that your other example is unrelated, that really does spare me bothering to respond to it ^_^
    Okay, humour me by stating verbatim the comparison I made.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    Okay, humour me by stating verbatim the comparison I made.
    thanks for failing to respond to anything other than one tiny piece of my post
    you do that quite a lot, don't you?

    also you were clearly trying to test the limits of physio's "support of two people in a relationship", since you were trying to compare a homosexual relationship to a incestual and then ask if they supported the latter despite the obvious differences in either. i'm assuming you used incest because of it's abnormality, but that would suggest that you fail to understand homosexuality on any other basis except how atypical and "abnormal" it is.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thetoebeans)
    thanks for failing to respond to anything other than one tiny piece of my post
    you do that quite a lot, don't you?

    also you were clearly trying to test the limits of physio's "support of two people in a relationship", since you were trying to compare a homosexual relationship to a incestual and then ask if they supported the latter despite the obvious differences in either. i'm assuming you used incest because of it's abnormality, but that would suggest that you fail to understand homosexuality on any other basis except how atypical and "abnormal" it is.
    I do that EVERYTIME someone chats crap by misrepresenting my statements/position. Ask shadowdweller, she experienced such in full effect last week.

    When you prove your nonsense, then other discussions can be had. I don't tolerate strawmans.

    Now again: Humour me by stating verbatim the comparison I made.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I am against people who are hateful, unkind, violent, knowingly stupid (eg drunk drivers). I am not against people for what they do in their private lives as long as it doesn't physically or emotionally hurt someone else. The gay people I know are kind, honest, funny, full of love, so why would I not like them? No-one is born with any prejudices; they learn them from people who don't have high IQs. People are often frightened of what they don't understand. Ask yourself this: if you were lying dying in the street would you care if a gay person saved your life by performing CPR and kiss of life, or would you prefer they kept well away from you? If the latter, then your IQ is definitely low and I would put you in the 'knowingly stupid' category (kind of same as ISIS killers who have no respect for their own lives). My judgement of you is based on your hatefulness towards other humans - you are right at the bottom of the list as far as I am concerned. Have a nice day.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    I do that EVERYTIME someone chats crap by misrepresenting my statements/position. Ask shadowdweller, she experienced such in full effect last week.

    When you prove your nonsense, then other discussions can be had. I don't tolerate strawmans.

    Now again: Humour me by stating verbatim the comparison I made.
    actually, i wasn't misrepresenting your statements at all the relationship you used as an example was first degree, meaning that either you failed to actually read your sources or actually think i'm talking about incest in general, which is totally unrelated to this thread

    anyway, i have to ask: why bring up such a relationship in response to physio's statement if not to compare it? explain your reasoning for essentially derailing the thread to go on a pointless argument on the inherent issues with incest?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    You totally have the right to say you’re against it or don’t agree with it, you may be influenced by your culture or education or something and it’s totally normal, thank God we all have different opinions. But what wouldn’t be acceptable is thinking that, just because you don’t agree with it, it means it’s wrong; what isn’t acceptable is stopping other people from doing what they want just because you don’t agree with it
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    I do that EVERYTIME someone chats crap by misrepresenting my statements/position. Ask shadowdweller, she experienced such in full effect last week.

    When you prove your nonsense, then other discussions can be had. I don't tolerate strawmans.

    Now again: Humour me by stating verbatim the comparison I made.
    I did experience you refusing to address points, yes.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    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.
    The number of people is less clear, given that LGBT tend to be a single character or a few within a show, where religion is a central theme of more shows and as such there will be a considerably higher number within any one.

    The number of shows again, it depends what we're talking; I'd actually argue that it's not a huge difference though, given that shows with an LGBT character will quite often have at least one religious character too.

    Positive representation is still a huge issue within LGBt characters, so I'm not sure I'd say either has a particularly good expression of community image right now.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thetoebeans)
    actually, i wasn't misrepresenting your statements at all the relationship you used as an example was first degree, meaning that either you failed to actually read your sources or actually think i'm talking about incest in general, which is totally unrelated to this thread

    anyway, i have to ask: why bring up such a relationship in response to physio's statement if not to compare it? explain your reasoning for essentially derailing the thread to go on a pointless argument on the inherent issues with incest?
    Is this the verbatim quotation I asked you to provide as proof?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    I did experience you refusing to address points, yes.
    You experience my refusal to answer points or experienced me challenging your strawmans?

    Be clear now, you know I don't like liars.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    The number of people is less clear, given that LGBT tend to be a single character or a few within a show, where religion is a central theme of more shows and as such there will be a considerably higher number within any one.
    It is a very clear question.

    Review the amount of Christian main characters that are written on TV shows like Eastenders, Coronation Streets, HollyOaks etc. with specific focus on their christian values and compare with those written for LGBT main characters.

    Surely homosexuality is not supposed to be the central theme of such shows but it is somehow always accommodated unlike religious people?

    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    The number of shows again, it depends what we're talking; I'd actually argue that it's not a huge difference though, given that shows with an LGBT character will quite often have at least one religious character too.
    You are right on this one but with a catch though.

    Christian TV shows are usually written based on historical context or events, not modern context or events.

    LGBT shows are written based on ingratiation of the community with society, with the ultimate aim of acceptance and embracement. That is the catch and the big difference.

    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    Positive representation is still a huge issue within LGBt characters, so I'm not sure I'd say either has a particularly good expression of community image right now.
    Can you list the major shows and films you know that has been written in the last 10 years where an LGBT character in it is written in a negative context/light?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    You experience my refusal to answer points or experienced me challenging your strawmans?

    Be clear now, you know I don't like liars.
    I experienced you refusing to answer points. There wasn't a strawman, however, just a misinterpretation of your initial post.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.