CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Of course you would have to put common sense into this. Sexual intercourse isn't only penetration, it can be anything from oral to anal, therefore, the question you are asking depends on the person and if they decide to , but by all means, it is possible
Jesus, I'm tired of people always bitching on with " Oh this source from Wikipedia says..." and " Well, the Bible says..." and " Well, 'askanyquestion.com' says....." That really defeats the point of a good debate. A good debate isn't meant to be what other people have written and using that as an offence. A good debate consists of people with original ideas, their own opinions e.t.c. It is my opinion that if two lesbians feel sexually aroused by eachother, and do some hanky panky, that is sexual intercourse. If a man and a woman have anal intercourse, is it not still sex? So why should it batter if its a woman or a mans ass?! Yes, homosexuals do have sexual intercourse.
I am not disagreeing with everything you are saying, but a true debate is meant to be supported with facts, in most cases people use definitions, or things that various sources say. But I do agree with you pretty much on everything else you said.
The other definition I gave is kind of a direct counter to this definition.
physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person
So I guess if the dictionaries won't get their answers straight then gay people can do technically whatever they want. By this defintion also, sodomy is arguably sexual intercourse, not of the vagina and penis.
I could care less what word supports what view, even if you were right I'd just hold the opinion that consummation should be that of sex rather than intercourse. Like I said I'm not biased towards politics, I am biased towards the efficiency of our language.
We NEED a "be all, end all" definitive source. Otherwise there's chaos. Otherwise words would have no meaning. If we can change the meaning of a word on a whim, then it has no meaning.
Critical thinking dictates that there is value in having words with very specific meaning. If we have need for a new meaning, then critical thinking dictates that we create a new word to capture the new concept.
Otherwise you could say something and I'll be like, "Hmmm, what's today's date? Cause the meaning of that word may have changed. I wonder what it means today?" What value is there in questioning what a word means during a conversation? The whole purpose of words is so that we don't have to question it. The whole purpose is to convey a well defined thought/concept. If there were no words to convey the concept of anal sex, then you could argue that we can use the word intercourse to convey that concept. But we already have words to convey that thought/act.
You misunderstand the entire point. I am not saying change word definitions on a whim. I am saying to change the definitions to reflect how the word is defined in society and culture today. A reflection, if you will.
Otherwise it becomes just as chaotic when people turn to a dictionary and get an incorrect definition.
What do you consider society and culture? Most people my age mean a penis penetrating a vagina. I am part of the baby boomers. There are more of us than there are of you. When we die, you can call it whatever you want. But for now, I have the numbers ;)
My family is actually quite known to be pretty liberal yes, if it's only liberals that think that though then at least half of the population in America agrees with me, and there is a good portion of republicans that agree with me so.
We NEED a "be all, end all" definitive source. Otherwise there's chaos. Otherwise words would have no meaning. If we can change the meaning of a word on a whim, then it has no meaning.
The thing is, we can't have a "be all, end all", sure it would be ideal, but that would require getting 7,000,000,000 people going by the same dictionary, and same language (because different languages complicate the issue as well). So yes it would be ideal to have that but we can't. We don't "need" we just need to be on the same page enough for language in and of itself to be beneficial.
Critical thinking dictates that there is value in having words with very specific meaning. If we have need for a new meaning, then critical thinking dictates that we create a new word to capture the new concept.
There is also a unique value in having words that aren't as specific, so we should have both so we can work with both.
Otherwise you could say something and I'll be like, "Hmmm, what's today's date? Cause the meaning of that word may have changed. I wonder what it means today?"
Words don't change that fast, they change over generations, and honestly I'd argue it is good because it allows our language to evolve to be more efficient, we have 5 times more words than that of Shakespear now.
What value is there in questioning what a word means during a conversation? The whole purpose of words is so that we don't have to question it.
You can't question the meaning of a word, because objectively words don't have meaning. What value is there questioning the meaning of words I go by? which meaning is the real meaning? because if we go by my meaning we are questioning your meaning, if we go by your meaning we are questioning my meaning.
The whole purpose is to convey a well defined thought/concept.
Does the meaning I am familiar with not do that? both meanings do that.
If there were no words to convey the concept of anal sex, then you could argue that we can use the word intercourse to convey that concept. But we already have words to convey that thought/act.
I don't see how it follows that we can't even if there is already a word for it of which is simply more specific? both specific words and generic words are valuable. What if you are talking about sexual relations regardless of orientation in general? what word do we have for that?
Saying that we should just accept it because it is simpler, means that you support lazy thinking. Sheep use lazy thinking. They follow the herd because that's simpler than actually thinking for yourself.
A pack of wolves split up. One does the chasing while the other one sets the trap. They are bale to think for themselves. If that wasn't the case they would both try to set the trap or both would try to chase.
I have lost faith in the American culture. It is full of lazy thinkers. I don't see how we can maintain our technological edge given these circumstances.
Saying that we should just accept it because it is simpler, means that you support lazy thinking. Sheep use lazy thinking. They follow the herd because that's simpler than actually thinking for yourself. A pack of wolves split up. One does the chasing while the other one sets the trap. They are bale to think for themselves. If that wasn't the case they would both try to set the trap or both would try to chase.
I have lost faith in the American culture. It is full of lazy thinkers. I don't see how we can maintain ou technological edge given these circumstances.
Oh well ;)
What is the point of having language if we use the language in a counter-productive way. If there was an official dictionary that society went by, that would be one thing, and all dictionaries try to correlate with society, because societies definition is relevant. I am also not saying that society's definition should just be accepted however it should be relevant when using a definition, so should consistency of our language. For example the entire atheist population define atheism as a "lack of belief in god" however at least half of society doesn't agree. All of society defines people attracted to children sexually are what one should call pedophiles, but the word "pedo" and "Phile" would mean child lover, and I think it would be better if society used "pedosexual" in place of pedophile (though I won't accuse teachers of pedophiles merely because that would be quite unwise). This goes for a lot of things.
Society means the majority. The majority are baby boomers. Your parents may be baby boomers. Ask them what intercourse means to them and you will know what the majority of people mean.
Then, when the baby boomers die off and are no longer the majority, you can change the definition all you want ;)
homosexuals sodomize each other, or, engage in tribedism, in the event they are female homosexuals. Sexual Intercourse is defined explicitly as the penetration of the vagina by the penis. Such cannot be performed physically between homosexuals, though homosexuals could, if they so desired, engage in sexual intercourse with members of the opposite sex in addition to, or instead of, engaging in homosexual relations.
Well technically not. If the sex is not of a vagina and with a penis, it is as Joe said, Sodomy.
This is the only specific link I can find defining seuxal intercousre to perfectly exclude homosexual activities. I believe the term needs to be redefined though. It was written at a time where homosexuality was not as common.
They are not fully accepted however, just because they are *more" accepted here than other places doesn't mean they are not accepted, if they were fully accepted here in the U.S. they'd have the right to marry in every state. At the very least they are not fully accepted as heterosexuals are.
As far as acceptance goes. I considered it on a base level of not standing against them. Murders are not accepted, insects are accepted. Murders are placed away and exiled by society, while insects still not liked, are not eradicated on sight.
The part about it not being fully was a technicality.
I don't see the point you are trying to make by pointing out that some places have less tolerance for them. An injustice somewhere is an injustice everywhere, equality needs to be consistent, whatever rationality we have for equality needs apply in all cases.
I was preparing my rebuttal when I realized you're right. What I meant by technicality was meant to say that technically they are not accepted everywhere, when I was actually proving your point.
Sorry but we're still viewed as abnormal, strange, even a threat to the norm.
And such views are not in the minority, though the number is being reduced daily thank goodness.
Until such a time as I feel safe admitting, in public to everyone, that I'm gay... well, I don't know if such a day will come, tbh.
It's one thing to do so on the internet but in person... that's where I feel threatened. If not physically, then mentally since everyone will always view me differently, and not in the good way. Also, the stereotypes are insulting and not representative of the majority of the gay community.
It's bad enough I have Asperger's Syndrome and having that change the way people view me. I don't need to think I'm some kind of freak because of my orientation either.
Sorry but we're still viewed as abnormal, strange, even a threat to the norm.
By whom? Famous gay/lesbians exist and no one person specifically is boycotting all that they do.
If not physically, then mentally since everyone will always view me differently, and not in the good way
If you're different, you're different. Since when did being different become a bad thing? Most great ideas come from people with different ways of thinking devising plans that play off of their differences. We have great markets because of people with differences.
Also, the stereotypes are insulting and not representative of the majority of the gay community.
If you're judging your life off of the stereotypes of any culture you represent, that's your own issue, not the issue of the people who make the stereotypes.
I don't want 'tolerated'. I want 'accepted'.
Do you accept religious views of atheists, Christians, Jewish people, Hindus,. Buddhists, and whatever else exist?
No because to accept it would be to welcome it, like it, and maybe even try it, tolerance is the only plan for world peace that even has a shred of potential. When white people tolerate black people race wars don't happen. When religions tolerate one another holy wars don't happen. Acceptance is a step farther where everyone must bow to your whim, and if you're waiting for that to happen you'll be waiting a long time.
You assume, but you do not understand the points I was making.
Guess it was a fool's errand, after all.
But I will add this: before, I was viewed like everyone else. When we learned of my condition, my dad noticeably began acting as if he were stepping on eggshells around me, and on more than one occasion has made me feel horrible purely by accident.
I don't have to have everyone bow to my whims to be accepted. I just want to be viewed as normal. Tolerance only goes so far, imho. And many confuse it for 'acceptance' when that's not what it is at all.
But I'm done with this, because you won't listen anyway. Perhaps part of it is my fault, but there comes a point in every argument where further debate is pointless. I've reached that with you.
When we learned of my condition, my dad noticeably began acting as if he were stepping on eggshells around me, and on more than one occasion has made me feel horrible purely by accident.
By condition do you mean aspergers or your sexuality, because I don't view sexual orientation as a condition, it's a way of life.
The reason people act different when someone comes out is because they are announcing a new way of life. If a Christian child says to his Christian parents, he's an atheist, you better believe they will feel awkward around him. Especially when time comes for prayer or for church. Yet if they're not burning him at the cross, or kicking him out, (this means you) then they are tolerating him.
A way of life is a hard thing to adjust to, you can't expect people to just accept you with open arms when discovering you're not the same as them.
I don't have to have everyone bow to my whims to be accepted. I just want to be viewed as normal. Tolerance only goes so far, imho. And many confuse it for 'acceptance' when that's not what it is at all.
I think you're confusing what tolerance and acceptance is. Tolerance is to not abuse people for their differences, acceptance is to take them in as their whole. You never accept anything new, acceptance takes time.
But I'm done with this, because you won't listen anyway. Perhaps part of it is my fault, but there comes a point in every argument where further debate is pointless. I've reached that with you.
Perhaps if you would spend some time thinking from my perspective you would come up with the correct assumptions, instead of the wild shots. I'm not being a victim here.
Of course by 'condition' I meant my mental disability. Orientation is just a lifestyle choice. It hasn't been a 'condition' for years now.
And I realize acceptance takes time. But I just want it to occur instead of people being close-minded even today about it. Tolerance, I feel, is just a way for people to feel good about themselves half the time. Some do it in the spirit of acceptance, I suppose. Others are just all 'I tolerate this so I'm a good person', but don't actually care.
Maybe I'm jaded and it's distorting things for me, but whatever. I'm done. I just wanted to clarify some of those mistakes you made about me.
I have thought about things from your perspective. I understand that I'm tolerated by my family. That Christian analogy was of me. I am mostly atheist and didn't partake in my parent's religious activities, and it was weird at first because a new way of life entirely was suddenly thrust upon them. Yet as my family they accepted me, tolerated my lifestyle, and didn't kick me out.
Others are just all 'I tolerate this so I'm a good person', but don't actually care
What does it matter? If you're not being persecuted you should take what you can get. There are battles to win, the war comes later. I am not a fan of creationists, I have a youtube account dedicated to making their stays on their miserable, but I tolerate them. I don't flame them, I only call out where they are wrong if need be. I don't attack them, i actually only attack the ones that are attacking someone else.
Eh. Part of it is that I'm sick of looking at a broken world every time I watch the news. And being a guy I tend to want to fix things even if it's impossible.
A lot of past civilizations have collapsed, majority of past civilizations have collapsed, been dominated, died off, disappeared somehow, and they all accepted heterosexuals, by that logic I can say heterosexuals had to do with their downfall. Can you show where homosexuality had anything to do with their collapse? How does it follow?
By definition, if something is one thing, it can not be another. If the definition explicitly states it is one one thing, it is implicitly stating that it is not anything else but that.
Any dictionary is enough to define sexual intercourse as exclusively heterosexual relations.
There are two dictionaries, one defining sexual intercourse regardless of gender, the other supporting your definition? Which one do we go with? or we should just accept both definitions as valid, since words can have multiple definitions.
