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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Do you know what two consenting adults of sound mind, means?
Comparing marriage between two loving, consenting adults, to the "slippery slope of sex with a corpse" means you have no idea what people are fighting for when they want same-sex marriage.
Someone else put it better.
"When someone sees a slippery slope between same-sex marriage and bestiality or pedophilia, (or in FW's case...necrophilia) , that's a pretty good indication that they view marriage as a pairing between a man and his sex-object, not a loving bond between two consenting adults of sound mind."
To continue with FW's tirade, yes, people also used to laugh at the thought of interracial marriage, they used to laugh at women wanting jobs, they used to laugh at safe work places for children....see where this is going?
I don’t really see why you would limit marriage to 2 people. Marriage equality and religious liberty would call for marriage as an arrangement between as many consenting parties as desired. Monogamy is not really the historical norm anyway.
In a way I agree. At one point monogamy was detrimental to the human race, now it's not but it's also a choice. I want to be with one partner but not all people think that way. So long as it's a union between consenting adults, where everyone has a choice, it should be fine. What I'm referring to however is this ridiculous line of gay marriage being a slippery slope to bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia.
Is there some reason there should be a law against necrophiliac beastiality? It essentially a sexual drive for an inanimate object. Little different than a sex toy, isn’t it?
It's quite different. At no point in time was a sex toy a living creature. Comparing a same sex union to necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia is a false equivalency.
A sexy toy is not living, but neither is a dead animal. I don’t see the relevance of the fact that it was once living. Provided the person didn’t kill the animal, he is not harming anyone. Provided he is in the privacy of his own home, what business is it of yours?
Do you believe having sex with a dead animal is a right that should be given to others? Do you believe it is comparable to adults having consenting sex with the same gender?
You're avoiding my questions. I am not comparing sex with dead animals to homosexual sex. An equivalency need not be made to make a valid slippery slope argument. What is needed is the operative principle being applied consistently in different contexts.
If you argue for a person's right to privacy within their own home, that principle can be applied to many different circumstances that are in no way equivalent, save for the common application of the principle. If I argue that upholding privacy could lead to domestic violence, you can demonstrate that principles against initiating violence overrule the principle of privacy, thus my slippery slope argument is fallacious. If there is no overruling principle, then my slippery slope argument is valid.
So what exactly are the operative principles at play in your argument for homosexuals? Please be explicit enough to rule out sexual behavior you wish to keep at the margins. If you are unable to, consider that the slope may not be as fallacious as you suppose.
I wasn't avoiding your question at all, I wanted to clarify the position you were taking. Continuing the conversation after that is usually the goal.
To clarify. What people who are fighting for regarding gay marriage is the ability for people of sound mind and consenting age to get married to whom they choose. To live their lives with the same rights and responsibilities and be able to live with the one they love, just as heterosexual couples can. Why do any of us get married in the first place? To be with the one we love, the one we choose, the one who also chooses you. Can there be a marriage otherwise? Sure. But if you want to uphold the principles of marriage to where only a heterosexual couple can have one by using what is either illegal or shock value, you end up equating your spouse to an animal, an inanimate object, a corpse, a child, and so on. Would one think heterosexual marriage is a slippery slope to all that? No. Because heterosexual marriage is seen as a loving, functional, consensual adult practice.
I hope that answers your question, if not let me know.
What people who are fighting for regarding gay marriage is the ability for people of sound mind and consenting age to get married to whom they choose.
“Sound mind” seems to be a key principle here. It wasn’t that long ago that gay people were not considered to be of sound mind. It was even more recently that trans people were not considered to be of sound mind.
The DSM altered the way they define disorder, limiting it to a syndrome or pattern associated with a disability, an increased risk of harm or suffering, or personal distress. You can believe you are a glass of orange juice and stay outside the definition of disorder. If a person wants to use dead animals as sex toys, and can do so without being distressed and without increasing the risk of harm to themselves, then suggesting they are not of sound mind may just make you bigoted.
This is not drawing an equivalence between homosexuals and the bizarre behavior I’ve listed. This is a demonstration that principles applied here also apply elsewhere. It wasn’t that long ago that trans people were considered to be outside the realm of gay rights activism. Arguments against gay activists included “slippery slope” scenarios into trans rights. Gay activists called it a fallacy and a false equivalence.
I’m not actually discussing the marriage aspect. That comes after society has deemed a given behavior acceptable. I’m talking about the behavior itself. Your boundary for acceptable behavior appears to be based on principles that leave open the same slippery slope that got society to where it is today. The slope that has you arguing for the rights of people you may have placed as outcasts if this were 1985. (For the record, I don’t personally care that much about said slope or it’s current iteration)
“Sound mind” depends on legal and medical definitions. It can turn on a dime and it has. So can “age of consent”, “adulthood” and even “sex act”. If you aren’t very clear about the principles that underlie your position, you may be no better off than those who don’t like gay people because they are “icky”.
Nothing you said answers anything except for your denial of the slippery slope.
Who are you to say people do not love their animals enough to marry them? You are doing exactly what you claim I do which is to draw a line in the sand of sexual orientations.
I draw it at the natural normal roles of a man and woman, as science teaches us. I have science on my side.
You on the other hand draw the line with the loudest most powerful political correct activist group. They have brainwashed you into believing unnatural sexual relations are natural and normal, while other relationship such as owner and pet are not.
You are a typical Liberal with your double standards to why only your LGBT letter of the month is ok.
You finally got me! My secret is out, but you don't have all the story.
I have feelings for more than just one horse. I am a PolyFillygamist whereby I have a stable full of colts, fillies, foals, geldings, mares, stallions, broncos, mustangs, ponies, chargers, coursers, cow ponies, cutting horses, gallopers, hacks, packhorses, prancers, quarter horses, racehorses, saddle horses, trotters, warhorses, not to mention a workhorse I name Trump :)
I want my equal rights to marry as many horses as I can fit in my barn! Who are you to tell me who I can marry , and how many.
If LGBT groups are forcing our nation to embrace unnatural sexual orientations, then open the flood gates!
Biology teaches us about the natural roles of men and women when it comes to sex, how our bodies are designed, how our sexual organs are designed to work.
Obviously you need a refresher course. You have been brainwashed by this LGBT hysteria.
I guess under your logic, there can be no unnatural sexual orientation. Anything goes...
Anything goes between consenting adults what makes it unnatural if it’s consensual?
Men and animals, men and corpses, men and consenting children, men and men, men and 30 wives, etc.
Stop being ridiculous children have not reached an age to consent to sex with an adult
I'm sure you even have your limits to what you consider unnatural. Why is your definition the correct one?
I’m asking you to tell me what is the one core common denominator that makes these acts unnatural? You keep evading the question by deflection so at least attempt an answer
As soon as we opened Pandora's box, there are no longer any natural scientific norms when it comes to our sexual attractions.
Why do you get to make whatever rules you want when it comes to your limits?
Who on earth says there is an age limit when it comes to natural sexual orientations?
Liberals have spit all over our children's age of consent. Remember when they started busing our children across borders to get abortions without parental knowledge?
You hypocrites are a joke!
I've answered you in a thousands ways. Science tells us the natural design of our bodies and what normal sexual attractions are suppose to be.
Ignore is the only escaped from brainwashed Socialists who would deny that water is wet if it excused their extremism.
Interesting , you have no defence regards you cannot explain what makes an act unnatural, and I’ve not denied water is wet and how is asking to justify your position “extremism”
Debating Liberals is like talking to five year olds
Obviously you must find 5 year olds a challenge regarding your intellectual impairment
. You deny the obvious and say "it is is so! it is not! it is so! it is not!
What is “the obvious “ as in what makes one sexual orientations unnatural? Bet you will deflect yet again
There is no intelligent debate with Liberals.
But you are an unintelligent clot so you’re not in a position to make such a pronouncement
You are truly brainwashed.
Interesting , this from a guy who believes in a talking Donkey because the Bible says so ......and there
So you think it is natural for a man to have sexual attractions towards an animal?
It’s unusual what makes it “unnatural “?
Living in a treehouse is regarded as unnatural by others so what’s your point?
They also say they were born with this attraction.
Who is “they” and why anyone accept the word of “they”?
It's obviously unnatural as it is when a man has sexual attractions towards another man?
What makes it “unnatural”?
For you to ask such irrational questions says how far off the deep end the Left has gone.
The questions you cannot answer you mean? Your only way out is to label dissenting voices to your “theories “ as irrational, so tell me what makes an act unnatural?
FromWithin you are a retarded monkey. Your wife must be into bestiality if she married you.
Nothing is unnatural because everything that exists is a part of nature. Whether something is "natural" or not has nothing to do with whether it is good or bad because everything that exists is part of nature by definition.
People such as myself have no problem with anti discrimination laws, Hospital visitation rights, two consenting adults spending their lives together, etc. etc. etc., but as always, deceptive people try and twist our concerns.
I've explained a thousands times what I am fighting against, and deceptive losers refuse to admit it!
I missed where you were concerned over a man's right to have 30 wives because he loved them all! Oh, I keep forgetting, this is not about love, it's about LGBT activists forcing ALL AMERICANS to embrace and sanction their lifestyles, whether we agree or not.
No other groups allowed!
Bigamists, Beastiality, Necrophilia, Pedophiles marrying consenting kids, will all some day demand their so called equal right's just as the LGBT activists have forced on every State.
If it were not for LGBT activist groups suing Churches to allow Gay Sunday school teachers (even though Homosexuality is a sin in the Bible).
If not for the fact activist LGBT groups take private Christian owned businesses to court for not catering things that go against their faith or conscience.
If not for the fact that activist LGBT groups are trying to force public schools to allow boys, who think they are girls, into our daughter's bathrooms against the will of parents.
If not for the fact that activist LGBT groups are trying to force public schools to allow boys, who think they are girls, into our daughter's sport's programs.
If not for the fact that the Left is boycotting and discriminating against States for preventing men, dressed like women, from entering women's public bathrooms. They would be barred from hosting NCAA tournaments.
I could go on and on about why we speak out, but deceptive jokes like you continually twist the truth of what is happening in this nation.
In this any thing goes culture, how on Earth can you say having sex with animals, or corpses is wrong? I thought the Left was against judgmental people telling us what we can do in our bedrooms?
Who are you to draw the line at two men having sex? There can no longer be lines in this sick anything goes culture. We once drew the line with marriage to a man and woman. That was until these activist groups started forcing their agendas through the courts.
These other people also say they are born that way! Who are you to say it is wrong when you are so strongly in support of other unnatural sexual orientations such as homosexuality.
Most of us use the Science of Biology to teach the natural normal roles of men and women to our impressionable children. These activist groups are now in schools teaching even Kindergartner's about unnatural sexual orientations, AND YOU WONDER WHY PARENTS SPEAK OUT?
Activist LGBT groups and the Democrat Party deny science, while ignorant brainwashed people follow along like good little sheep dogs.
There are already activist groups fighting for Pedophile rights! keep your head buried in the sand while you waste our time talking about love between to consenting adults.
I missed where you were concerned over a man's right to have 30 wives because he loved them all!
Feel free to read my discussion with Ameral.
Bigamists, Beastiality, Necrophilia, Pedophiles marrying consenting kids, will all some day demand their so called equal right's just as the LGBT activists have forced on every State.
Does the word ADULT confuse you? Consenting kids has zero weight or meaning. The argument is and always has been CONSENTING ADULTS, but of course we have to put "of sound mind" because people like you want to toss out any stupid comparison they can think of.
Who on Earth made the distinction CONSENTING ADULTS?
Is that in some rule book according to LGBT activists?
GET REAL! You have no more right to deny these other sexual orientations from their so called equal rights, then Gays.
Intelligent rational people once made it very simple. We as a society will lift up the obvious natural normal roles of women and men, and will teach our children the science of Biology.
Activists in the Democrat Party are trying to brainwash our impressionable children to unnatural fetishes.
