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.
I don't see how the consent argument against bestiality is in any way consistent in how we generally treat and see animals. Animals are generally used as resources to provide us happiness and satisfaction and we almost never care about consent. We never ask animals whether they want to be factory farmed, killed for food, killed so I could wear my leather belt or whether I could take my aspirine. We don't ask their permission when we lock them up in zoos, send them into space, conduct scientific tests on them, harvest them for resources (like milk and wool) and even force them to breed when we want or when we artificially inseminate them - by shoving a tube into their womb and forcibly impregnating them.
But when it comes to having sex with them - only then does consent matter? Why is this the only case?
And in the case of necrophilia one can easily give consent - I can sign a civil contract that states: When I die, the ownership of my body shall pass onto the party involved for whatever use he/she pleases.
Simple and easy and legitimate. What that guy does with the corpse in his own private sphere is essentially none of your business and affects you in no way.
Yes. What I don't understand about the whole slippery slope argument is, how can't it apply to heterosexuality if it implies to homosexuality? The slippery slope argument is stupid and driven by paranoia. Anything can be seen as a "slippery slope".
The slippery slope argument in the case of homosexuality is incredibly valid from the perspective of the rationale used to justify homosexuality.
If we say, for example, that what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their business - then it is inexplicable why incestuous couples should be excluded from such arguments.
The same applies to bestiality and necrophilia, albeit in modified forms.
It's sad we live in a world where we need to "justify homosexuality."
what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their business - then it is inexplicable why incestuous couples should be excluded from such arguments
Because if it hurts a potential child it's no longer solely between two consenting adults.
The reason it's inappropriate to compare homosexuality to bestiality, necrophilia, and incest is because you are trying to compare sex between two living, consenting adults of the same sex to
fucking a corpse
fucking a goat
and fucking your sibling or parent and having retarded children
and honestly bro if you you can't see why comparing someones love life to any of those things is inappropriate I'm not sure there's anything I can do or say to help you; you're probably too far gone at this point. I mean really. If someone walked in on you and your significant other getting it on and went, "Huh, this reminds me of sticking my penis into a rotting cadaver/a cows vagina/my mother," you would find that to be an appropriate comparison to make?
It's sad we live in a world where we need to "justify homosexuality."
Isn't it always sad that the world does not support our personal principles and ideological views that we hold to be self-evident?
Because if it hurts a potential child it's no longer solely between two consenting adults.
Funny that this argument is practically never applied to abortions. I thought potentiality does not mean actuality.
The incestuous couple can simply use contraceptives or get an abortions. It's legal in most western countries. The incestuous couples can also be homosexuals, so I assume it would be alright for them?
And are you prepared to sterilize or ban other people from procreating - such as people who suffer from hereditary diseases, who are more inclined to develop diseases, women over 40's etc.? Suddenly you have a lot of people who can't have sexual relationships anymore.
The reason it's inappropriate to compare homosexuality to bestiality, necrophilia, and incest is because you are trying to compare sex between two living, consenting adults of the same sex to
fucking a corpse
fucking a goat
and fucking your sibling or parent and having retarded children
Well, why do you think you have a right to tell people what they can and cannot do, especially when they don't harm anyone else?
Incest does not concern you, some guy in his home fucking a corpse that he obtained through a legal contract does not concern you and some guy fucking his horse or some chick getting fucked by a horse - that affects you in no way and what they do is none of your business.
Why should their freedom and happiness be taken away because you think it's ''inappropriate''? Millions, perhaps even billions of people could say the same thing in the context of homosexuality, but I doubt you would take what they say seriously.
I'm not sure there's anything I can do or say to help you; you're probably too far gone at this point. I mean really. If someone walked in on you and your significant other getting it on and went, "Huh, this reminds me of sticking my penis into a rotting cadaver/a cows vagina/my mother," you would find that to be an appropriate comparison to make?
The comparison is not based on actions themselves, it's based on the rationale used to justify these actions.
If we say that what consenting people do between themselves or with their property in their own private home and aren't hurting anyone by doing it, then it's okay - you must understand that there is now a whole bunch of generally immoral things that can now be justified.
All of these sexual minorities will want equal and non-discriminatory treatment from the legislators. And with good reason. Ad hoc argumentation is unconvincing and logically inconsistent. If you want to support homosexuality, use arguments that can't be used to support other deviant relations as well.
The incestuous couple can simply use contraceptives or get an abortions. It's legal in most western countries. The incestuous couples can also be homosexuals, so I assume it would be alright for them?
You can't really regulate making sure they put a condom on before sex. But yeah if there's zero chance of a kid coming from it, like in the gay situation, I guess I don't see anything wrong with it.
And are you prepared to sterilize or ban other people from procreating - such as people who suffer from hereditary diseases, who are more inclined to develop diseases, women over 40's etc.? Suddenly you have a lot of people who can't have sexual relationships anymore.
If the hereditary disease they are going to pass on is as severe or more severe than retardation I'm surprised it's not illegal for them to procreate already, and if it's not illegal I certainly think it should be. As for lesser diseases, like the hereditary heart disease I'm living with, it sucks, but it's nowhere near as bad as being born a retarded mutant. I can live and thrive and do stuff with my life I just have to visit the doctor a bit more often than most and take some regular medication. Retardation makes the child a next-to useless burden, forever. Way worse.
And when we're talking about banning incest, it's banning you from having sex with a very small group of people because there is a high chance having sex with those people will fuck up the next generation; to say that to people with hereditary diseases would be to ban them from having sex with anybody. Again, way worse; that's a much worse restriction to lay down on someone just for the sake of making the incest fair play.
Well, why do you think you have a right to tell people what they can and cannot do, especially when they don't harm anyone else?
Well you'll notice the only thing I've taken issue with here is an instinctual relationship that damages the child of that relationship. So the only time I feel I have a right to tell other people what they can and cannot do in this context is specifically when it harms someone else, and that's it. So I'm not sure where you're getting this idea I'm bossing people around with no good reason for it.
that affects you in no way and what they do is none of your business.
Thank you for reiterating what I've known for several years.
Why should their freedom and happiness be taken away because you think it's ''inappropriate''?
I never said they were "inappropriate," I said they were inappropriate things to compare homosexuality to; consequently I don't think their freedom and happiness should be taken away. You're putting a lot of words in my mouth, here. Did you read my post, man?
The comparison is not based on actions themselves, it's based on the rationale used to justify these actions.
Notice you utterly failed to explain that in the debate description or in any standalone arguments you posted in the debate itself.
If we say that what consenting people do between themselves or with their property in their own private home and aren't hurting anyone by doing it, then it's okay - you must understand that there is now a whole bunch of generally immoral things that can now be justified.
Yes, and if the only argument for homosexuality was "it's none of your goddamn buisness" we could use that... erm... "logic" to argue for all kinds of horrible actions. But that's not the entirety of the argument.
It's like marijuana legalization. I heard a lot of people make the argument we should legalize marijuana because we're short on cash as a nation and we could tax it and make money. Standalone, by itself, this is a shitty reason to legalize anything because it also applies to drugs like meth and heroin - things that are actually a major threat to individuals and families and society. But if you use the argument you can make money off taxing weed along with the other arguments for legalization (it's less harmful than alcohol/tobacco, it can actually be good for you, etc) it strengthens your case.
Similarly, nobody who advocates for homosexuality argues solely, "they're not hurting anyone, we can't see it, it's not our business." No. There are loads of other reasons homosexuals should be allowed to pursue their lust, love, and union. In fact I most frequently hear the "it's not our business" line in response to homophobic "arguments" like how gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because butt sex is disgusting. I've never heard it stated as the only reason gay marriage should be allowed, or anything like that.
If you want to support homosexuality, use arguments that can't be used to support other deviant relations as well.
Arguments like "they love eachother just like straight people do," applies to incest, doesn't apply at all to necrophilia, and can't apply in the same way to bestiality. Arguments like theres no such thing as traditional marriage, it's protected by the constitution, financial benefits for the state and for the couple, how it eases the adoption process and allows shared benifits and visitations and hospital access and stuff like that all somewhere between cant and can't necessicarily be applied to the deviant sexual prefrences you're talking about. So if you ignore those and the loads of other reasons homosexuality and homosexual marriage should be allowed and hone in on one reason you've noticed can apply to deviant sexual relations (there are others, too, like negative social stigma) then yeah, sure.
On the flip side of this argument, perhaps the deviant relations that can use some of the same arguments as homosexuality advocates do deserve a break, too. You've thought of some very special circumstances that negate all the reasons these activities were made illegal in the first place (i.e. incest produces retarded children - but what if they made sure they didn't have kids?; necrophilia disrespects someones corpse - but what if they deceased allowed the desecration?) and perhaps in those circumstances those activities should be allowed. So even if one or more of the arguments for homosexuality can be used (in very special, regulated circumstances) for necrophilia, so what? It's an argument for both. It doesn't make the argument any weaker or less valid.
No one is hurt when two consenting adults have sex, no matter the sex.
With incest there is a power structure, it is assumed, similar to laws against a boss asking their secretary to fuck them. There is also the potential for retarded children of course which is not something people should actively seek, though I'd argue that non-relatives have retarded kids on occasion too.
Bestiality is obviously a human taking advantage of an animal who has absolutely no way of saying no, so duh.
Of these necrophilia I find to be the least harmful. Yet, there is a victim should the family or loved ones find out, and for whatever reason think a dead body can feel something.
Homosexuality is not close to equivalent to any of these though.
With incest there is a power structure, it is assumed, similar to laws against a boss asking their secretary to fuck them. There is also the potential for retarded children of course which is not something people should actively seek, though I'd argue that non-relatives have retarded kids on occasion too.
I have never heard of any law that actively criminalizes power structure based relations. A boss fucking their secretary may be scandalous, but in no way illegal - as in landing in jail for 2-5 years. Generally if the people consent, there is no problem - especially when it takes place outside the work-sphere.
Incest, I take it, is an example where you think it is okay to limit the freedoms of consenting adults, even if they do their deeds privately and harm nobody. And if that's the case, it would be inexplicable why somebody can't be against homosexuality for similar grounds.
Your argument about the possibility of inbreeding may carry water, but if we are to be consistent with such reasoning, then we should also ban many types of people from having sex - people with hereditary diseases, women over their 40's, people who are genetically more inclined to develop certain diseases (diabetes, various forms of cancer, mental illnesses) etc etc. Essentially we would be bringing back eugenics. This argument can also be completely circumvented by homosexual incestuous relationships and between sterile couples.
Don't forget the use of contraception and abortion.
Bestiality is obviously a human taking advantage of an animal who has absolutely no way of saying no, so duh.
How come we never apply the same argument for other uses of animals - food, entertainment, medicines, clothing etc.
Of these necrophilia I find to be the least harmful. Yet, there is a victim should the family or loved ones find out, and for whatever reason think a dead body can feel something.
I can simply sign a contract where I freely give up the ownership of my body to someone else for whatever use they see fit. If my family doesn't like it, then that's their problem. I own my body, not them.
your argument about the possibility of inbreeding may carry water, but if we are to be consistent with such reasoning then we should also ban many types of people from having sex, - people with hereditary diseases, women in their 40's, people who are genetically more inclined to to develop develop certain diseases (diabetes, various forms of cancer, mental illness), etc etc.
Honestly these people have no choice to pass down these traits no matter who they breed with, however sex with relatives can be a choice. They are two different cases.
how come we never apply the argument for other uses of animals?
Because those other uses benefit us as a whole, allowing sex between animals doesn't benefit humanity as a whole.
I can simply sign a contract where I freely give up the ownership of my body to somebody else for whatever they see fit.
Honestly fine by me. That is your choice.
Maybe there is a slope here if you modify all the cases where consent is given, you aren't choosing creating NEW genetic defects. But do you not understand that the argument that homosexuality shouldn't be allowed because of the slippery slope can be applied to heterosexuality? Why should heterosexuality be allowed and no other sexual desires are? Because heterosexuality is necessary for reproduction? We can use sperm donations for that. Saying heterosexuals should be allowed because they are two consent adults implies that incest, and necrophilia in certain situations are ok.
Honestly these people have no choice to pass down these traits no matter who they breed with, however sex with relatives can be a choice. They are two different cases.
Incestuous couples also have no choice in these matters. If they are attracted to a family member, then they need to understand that there is a chance of genetic mutation if they choose to act on those desires. Their only ''choice'' is not to have sex, or to have an abortion or to use contraceptives - choices that everyone else has too.
I honestly don't see how it is okay to tell consenting incestious couples that they can't be together and that they should look for relations outside their family while it is completely unacceptable to tell a homosexual couple that they can't be together and they should find relations outside of their own sex.
But what about homosexual incest couples - they should be able to be together as they completely circumvent the genetic issue?
Because those other uses benefit us as a whole, allowing sex between animals doesn't benefit humanity as a whole.
What does it mean to benefit humanity as whole? Putting leather seats in my car benefits humanity? Locking animals up in zoos for our entertainment benefits us?
How does having a pet benefit humanity in any way? I think we should be intellectually honest about how we see and treat animals. We treat them as commodity that can be bought and sold - they are commodity that are generally utilized to provide us happiness, satisfaction and in some cases companionship - and in all these cases we do not care about what they want or what they think. I don't see why sex should be excluded from this. If it's okay to kill and torture animals for the most petty and inane reasons like clothing, sports and zoos, then I think sex wouldn't be that bad at all. Ultimately it's all the same - to make our lives happier and more comfortable.
Homosexuality is, normally, a consensual activity.
Incest certainly can be consensual; but it would require some abusive levels of conditioning for two consanguineous adults consent to an incestuous relationship. Even more overtly abusive is when one party is a child in which case they cannot be considered to have given any consent. Therefore, incest is dramatically different to homosexuality.
With respects to bestiality and necrophilia, it goes without saying that at least one party is not giving their consent (and cannot ever give consent) to such sexual activity. Therefore, these too are dramatically different to homosexuality.
In conclusion, it is inappropriate to compare homosexuality with incest, beastiality and necrophilia.
Incest is normally brought on forcefully, during rape. An animal and dead body can't say yes to sexual relations therefore they both are also rape. Homosexuality is not rape. It's is as normal and as beautiful as straight love. Not to mention all the other three is just about sex, not love.
Like Joe said, it's the end of reproduction. Like David said, it's also the end of reproduction for impotent individuals yet they still deserve their rights, and I agree with both of them.
Yet as the case is presented, it is not appropriate to compare, living consenting adults, who happen to be the same gender, that have sex to someone who is having sex with an animal or a corpse.
Although it's comparable, it's not appropriate to make such a comparison in any formal debating style, since the key factor that separates them is who's giving consent.
Yes, it is inappropriate. What WE are talking about is two people loving one another and committing themselves to one another. Not having sex with a dead being or an animal. Most animals do not breed for love, they breed to reproduce. So to say you are doing it out of love is false. You may love the being, but it does not love you back. Necrophilia has nothing the same with homosexuality. It is a dead being with no feelings left what so ever. And incest is a different topic. Allowing to people to wed, or have sexual relations with the same sex is not going to harm anyone. YOU will live. Incest can have health risks involved. Homosexuality cannot. So to say any of these three things are in anyway related to homosexuality is completely false.
All of those things lead to an evolutionary dead end. Nature's goal is reproduction. Those things don't lead to reproduction. Those things are not natural in the given context. But I would not go as far as saying that those things are wrong. ;)
What if a man has sex with his dead brother and his dog?
WTF are you talking about? I never said they couldn't get married. I just stated that the behavior in question are evolutionary dead ends. You read way more into it than I had intended ;)
It depends what you mean by me supporting gay marriage. I support gay rights to have the same rights as "married" couples. By that I mean that the government should use the word "marriage." The government should use the words "civil union" for both hetero and homosexual unions. This has ALWAYS been my stance. Go to my debate community (http://jaded.createdebate.com/) and search for gay marriage.
Individuals who have always been impotent and cannot be fixed are an evolutionary dead end. But they can enter into a civil union. Sure. ;)
No. They're all just sexual preferences. Just so long as you make sure to include "heterosexuality" to round out the list, you're good, compare and contrast them all you like.
Well they are all unnatural forms of sexuality. I mean if homosexuality was natural why do homosexuals have a higher chance of contracting aids? I don't agree with homosexuality however I don't hold it against homosexuals them selves its gods job to deal with sinners not mine.
