- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Genesis correctly describes that the earth was created in 7 days and science confirms it.
It also claims a global flood which is supported by science.
None. Local only.
Job describes the earth as a sphere
Other verses describe it as fixed, firm, immovable, unshakable, on pillars/cornerstones, and having four corners. The word Job used could mean round but could also just mean circular which would fit with many earlier flat circular earth models. Additionally, there were many reasons to believe the earth was round (or at least circular) - the shape of the sun and the moon, the shadow of the earth during an eclipse, ships disappearing on the horizon, etc....
Abolish pornography first - then let's talk...
Pretty sure your book says your a sinner just like everybody else.
If you don't think gay marriage is a good idea, then don't get gay married.
If you prefer not to live in a free society - you are free to find a different one.
"From the oldest of times, people danced for a number of reasons. They danced in prayer... or so that their crops would be plentiful... or so their hunt would be good. And they danced to stay physically fit... and show their community spirit. And they danced to celebrate." And that is the dancing we're talking about.
Aren't we told in Psalm 149 "Praise ye the Lord. Sing unto the Lord a new song. Let them praise His name in the dance"?
And it was King David - King David, who we read about in Samuel - and what did David do? What did David do? "David danced before the Lord with all his might... leaping and dancing before the Lord." Leaping and dancing.
Ecclesiastes assures us... that there is a time for every purpose under heaven. A time to laugh... and a time to weep. A time to mourn... and there is a time to dance. And there was a time for this law, but not anymore. See, this is our time to dance. It is our way of celebrating life.
It's the way it was in the beginning. It's the way it's always been. It's the way it should be now.
Animals also cannot consent to being property, being killed for food, etc. Yet those actions are not illegal.
A. Many people who believe that zoosexual acts should be illegal might disagree with those actions as well.
B. Barring those, the argument becomes a tu quoque ad hominem.
C. Minimizing gratuitous harm, or similar, could still be a consistent position.
sex between animals is not consensual either, but we do not attempt to regulate that.
See my other posts here
Nothing is ok for taking away there rights. [sic]
Why is this not applicable to pedophiles? Why should sex with animals be a right?
I am sorry but kids are now matter what still to young. [sic]
and Many of scientists as proven animals can consent [sic]
Too young in what way? They can "consent" at least in a similar way as the relevant animals.
sex with them would not cause anymore or any less harm then what it could cause a human. [sic]
Sex with humans takes into account several factors which are not applicable to animals - informed/qualified consent, etc.
There are also several laws related to the practice - rape, statutory rape, pedophilia, sex with those of diminished capacity, who are in a coma, are brain dead/dead, etc.
Sex with humans provides additional benefits - e.g. the propagation of the species...
I am not saying let anybody have sex with animals. Just people that has proven them selfs that they only have sexual feelings for animals. [sic]
How is someone to prove this? Also, why would the same treatment not apply to pedophiles?
I am not saying any of this is easy.
Correct - if anything you are showing how difficult, if not impossible, what you are advocating would really be in practice.
I don't have evidence. I just have information that I found on that.
same here I don't get all this online. I am sorry.
Actual studies that have been done show that a small number of breeds of some species can detect some diseases in humans. This is far from all of the relevant animals and none of the diseases detected so far (cancer, anxiety, hypoglycemic shock, etc.) are STDs.
If it were the case that all of the relevant animals could detect all of the relevant diseases (or even close to that), some evidence would exist somewhere in a book, movie, magazine, or in the entirety of the internet such that a citation could be made. People on this site do not (nor should they be expected to) just take assertions for fact. I am not an anthropologist or biologist and, in order for my argument to have weight, I must substantiate my assertions. As far as the people on this site are concerned, you are a random guy on the internet with atrocious spelling/grammar and no extraordinary c.v. to mention - therefore you must similarly provide substantiation for your assertions or be prepared to have them disregarded.
it must at least know that there are risk/rewards in the act to make a choice to do the act or not.
Instinctive drive for sexual pleasure does not require knowledge of any risks.
You may not agree with these suppositions, but I will pose a simplified view of my perspective as a hypothetical question:
If you believed that the law that you are seeking was untenable - e.g. there are not enough police, prosecutors, judges, biologists, veterinarians, tax dollars, etc. to enforce it,
And that you must then choose making zoosexual acts largely or entirely legal or illegal,
And you believe that having it be legal would increase the cases of animal rape (along with other consequences)
Would you favor making it legal, or illegal?
I do not think his request for evidence was trolling - in fact, I think this may be my fault.
After your post where you said you didn't have many sources (here), I was the one who responded to you. So, when you posted links, I was the one who saw the response in my activity instead of pakicetus.
I really dislike people being banned and try to only use it when people are spamming, selling things or just trying to get people to click their link to some other site, etc.; I would feel terrible if I was the cause of someone being erroneously banned.
Please accept my apologies for any confusion I caused you and pakicetus.
if he does I got money to pay for the abortion.
Can you guarantee that you could/would capture the other animal, even if it is ferrel, and take it to have said emergency spaying/abortion done.
I meant that women commonly get them own selfs spayed anyway.
You don't have to help us. You just need to stop going against us.
In keeping with the analogy, what would you say to pedophiles who said the same?
I just mean that someday people can transform them selfs to look like kids. And that in this time period we can't transform in to kids. But maybe someday we can.
Then should zoophiles wait until we can transform into animals (or create robot animals, etc.)?
I take my dog to the lake with another dog. We go for walks. And do lots of things out side.
What if one of those times your dog runs off and has sex with another dog?
Because it more common for women to do it anyway.
My understanding is that sex between the relevant animals generally requires both the male and the female.
I would say, I am very sorry. But I can't help you...
That is basically what people are saying to zoophiles, right?
But maybe someday, It will be possible. Hold on!!!
Not sure if you are saying sex with children should be legal so I will let you elaborate if you like (or, preferably, create another debate)
There are far more examples of bacteria that would not harm an animal but would harm a human in the human body.
The way you state it is somewhat ambiguous, but what I think you are saying is incorrect.
- 61% of pathogens known to cause disease in humans are zoonotic (transmitted from animals)
- 97% of those pathogens reside predominantly in the animal population
- "zoonotic species are overall twice as likely to be associated with emerging diseases than non-zoonotic species"
The last time homosexuals had to deal with that in the USA was 40 years ago.
While it is tangential to the debate at hand, I thought it necessary to point out that this is far from correct.
Homosexuals still can't marry in 66% of states - ref.
The Lawrence vs Texas anti-sodomy law was decided just over 10 years ago - ref
In 58% of states you can still be fired just for being homosexual - ref
About CreateDebateThe CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Sharing ToolsInvite Your Friends
RSS & XML Feeds
Basic StuffUser Agreement