I am not at all surprised with the assumptions made by the participants of the debate. Of course the responses were psychological, but then again, did you really expect anything else?

There are masses of people out there still debating on whether being gay is "wrong" or "right". So you can't really have a debate that is not emotionally charged when there are still people out there hoping to erase you.

The only way we could have a debate in which the participants predominantly use their logic to respond, is if we first established that as a society we don't think that homosexuality is "wrong" or a "disorder". Until that happens, until gay people stop feeling threatened, you will never have a logical debate.

Also, I would like to bring up another point. Before I continue with this point I would like to apologize in advance for coming to a conclusion about you that is really not my business. That conclusion is that you are straight. Why does it matter? Well it matters because in the eyes of a gay person, a straight man has started a debate on "regulating" homosexuality. You already have a charged atmosphere in your hands. The same atmosphere you would have if a white man started a debate on "regulating" the birth of black people. Or if a gay man started a debate on "regulating" the birth of straight people.

It doesn't matter that the debate does not specify the outcome of the regulation. The sheer fact that the host of the debate is straight, coupled with past hostilities perpetrated by straight people against gay people, add on top the fact that the world hasn't come to agreement about homosexuality not being "wrong", and you have a debate that is doomed to start on the wrong foot.

My final point is with regards to your use of the word "regulate". Indeed, the word itself does not imply the outcome. It does not speak of "reduction in numbers" or an "eradication" of homosexuals.

But you can't really compare the indiscriminate regulation of all traffic with traffic lights to that of humans with a particular characteristic. A better example would be to compare it to traffic lights that only regulate red cars.

My point is, the debate suggest discrimination.

You cannot be both a true Christian and a democrat at the same time. They don't mix.

In your mind they don't. But Jesus himself was a liberal, if not an anarchist.

How many atheists do you see as republicans?

Well, how many gays do you see as republicans? Officially not many. Because the party has been hijacked by religious narrow minded zealots. Unofficially however, the party has as many gay members as any other party. It's just that they remain in the closet or pay for rent boys. There are quite a few embarrassing examples of this in the republican party...

There is no such thing as other religions if you are a true Christian. The other religions are committing idolatry, but you would not know this, because you are not a true Christian.

Neither are you. If you are wearing a cross on your neck, if you bow to religious paintings or sculptures at the church, then you too are committing idolatry. If your clothes are made from more than one fabric, them I'm afraid you too are not a true Christian.

If you don't follow EVERYTHING prescribed by the Bible then you too are not a true Christian. I could go on with this, but I think you get the message.

It amazes me, how those who see themselves as true believers and followers of Jesus, are the first to separate themselves from the rest of the world in a manner that completely disregards every core teaching of the man you follow. People like you will go look at the small print in the Bible in search of something that makes the activities of other people sinful, in search of something that implies that everybody else but you will burn in hell. It amazes me that you would focus and interpret that one sentence that Jesus said, in order to show how the rest of the world will burn in hell, instead of focusing on the dozen other sentences in which he calls for forgiveness and love and unity despite of our differences.

If I was Jesus and I could choose who comes to spend eternity in my home in Paradise, do you think I would pick people that can't get on with other beliefs and differences? Do you think I would pick people that see themselves as better or superior or more righteous?

Do you think I would pick someone that followed my commands to the letter, but still carried a lot of hate and rage towards other people?

You think about that...

There's nothing shameful about the naked body.

However, just because something is natural, doesn't mean its OK to flash in front of other people.

Taking a dump is natural, but I don't think anyone would be OK with people crapping in the street.

Also note that people usually uncover the parts of their body that are needed to communicate or to perform a task. Which is why we show our faces and our hands.

When you take a dump you uncover you bum. When you swim you uncover a lot more cause it makes swimming more efficient.

It's only when you make love that the whole naked body is offered to someone else. That is the beauty of it. That's what makes full nudity so special. It's that sense of vulnerability and full exposure to a person you have feelings for.

Why flaunt this to all and everybody? Why give away all of your sexual bodily mystery for the sake of feeling "natural" and "changing attitudes"?

I just find it juvenile. Why is "changing other people's attitudes" so important anyway? Maybe they like their attitude.

And if it is that important to you to be naked outdoors then by all means, there are places where you can do that.

It's one of the weakest arguments, because it doesn't really contradict the validity of the opposing view. What it does is, it tries to invoke fear of a greater danger that is supposedly attached to the acceptance of the opposing view.

So you hear people saying "we don't want a social health care system because that is a slippery slope to communism", an argument that doesn't really dispute the merits of the social health care, it simply attaches it to the greater danger of communism.

In simple terms, the "slippery slope" argument is no different to scare mongering.

Why am I on this side of the debate? Because I actually thought of one case where this argument is actually valid: when an action creates a right that cannot be afforded by everyone.

You arrive 5 minutes late in your classroom and your teacher tells you that you can't come in because you are late. You plead with the teacher to forgive you and allow you to attend class. But the teacher says "if I allow you then I'm putting myself in a slippery slope of having to allow everyone else when they arrive late". Which would disrupt the order in the classroom. The argument is still weak in the sense that it relies on the possibility of all the other students exploiting the teacher's decision. But nevertheless, it's still a valid argument because in theory, all the other students should be allowed in the classroom when they are late.

What people believe to be the "right way" of doing things is extremely subjective and dependent upon the culture they are exposed to.

To then impose the conclusions of right and wrong of one generation upon all future generations with complete disregard of the changing times, is futile and only leads to more friction and trouble.

While the UK was debating what exactly was going to be included in gay civil unions, the people of your country were still debating whether the constitution allows civil unions in the first place.

So, before you know it, that self righteous piece of paper that so proudly expresses the right of the people, has seized to be of service to it's contemporary subjects, and instead serves its own self preservation.

If it was moral wishy washiness that made the people abort slavery 50 years ago, then all hail for moral wish washy people!

Yes it is. It may not be a permanent state, but it can last for the majority of your life.

The secret is to not look at the past or your mental projections of the future.

All you have is the present. And satisfaction can only come when you look at the present and accept it for what it is, and not wish it to be anything else other than what it is.

Even a troublesome present can yield joy if the pain is accepted and absorbed.

Read Eckhart Tolle.

Wow, take a look at her downvotes.

She's basically gone to my other debate "Should child beauty pageants be banned" and downvoted every argument on the "yes" side.

She's done the same here as well. What a fascist hypocrite.

.

To the creator of this debate:

I find it funny that you can't even tolerate an opposing view on the matter, and yet you proclaim that your daughter can stop the pageants if she so wishes.

Poor girl!

With all due respect, your daughter didn't "start" nothing at 1 1/2 months old. YOU started her in it. So when she was 1 1/2 months old you took her to a pageant and some "expert" looked at her among other kids and then decided which kid is the prettiest.

Bravo.

You've got a pretty kid. You should be so proud of your achievement!

A lot of parents introduce their kids to activities such as sports and various lessons when they are very little. But all those activities require some skill and the reward comes from hard work. And there is a progression of skill level.

What exactly is your daughter rewarded for?

I just don't get it. What is the skill she is meant to cultivate and be proud of? Walking and looking pretty?

The sheer fact that you say you will have a heart attack if she wants to stop, is evidence that this is more about you than it is about her.

OK I'm gonna go on this side, even though I don't think she is a "menace" per say.

A few weeks ago she went on this Friday night show (Jonathan Ross) here in the UK. Throughout the whole interview she was hiding behind her (below eye level) fringe, and she was holding a Chinese tea cup that she was sipping from every now and again. Her attitude on that show should be in every dictionary as the perfect definition for "pretentious twat". She went on about her years as a go-go girl and how she "cultivated" her pop art music in New York's underground scene etc etc. And she kept repeating "it's art!". Even when the guy asked her about the tea cup she said "it's art".

WHAT A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS.

So much was the damage she did to her image that she had to appear on a few morning shows the day after, to correct herself and show a better attitude. But whenever somebody interviews her they all say she is a pretentious twat.

I fucking hate people like that. I hate people who think that to be an artist is to be eccentric. And I hate people who take themselves so seriously, especially when their art is limited to repeating the word Pokerface a few hundred times in a 3 minute song.

Peh-lease, lady!

Are you making up stuff as you go along? Seriously.

Read my first post again. I didn't say we should "force" the abortion on the woman.

I said the court should take her to jail and once the baby is born, take the baby away and put it up for adoption. At the same time, offer her the option to volunteer to an abortion in exchange for this severe punishment. In other words, if she has an abortion, she can go home free. Plea bargain style.

So there would be no LAW to enforce abortion. Instead, the law would call for jail time and the taking of the baby for adoption. You even agreed on that one. But there could be a window/loophole in the law that allows the woman to rectify the situation by volunteering to an abortion.

Everything else you mentioned, all those men with evil motives etc etc is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the debate. This is NOT about those men!

And then you came up with the most ludicrous of most ideas out there, that men should have a vasectomy if they don't want children. Are you high or something? How would you feel if someone suggested that women should have similar surgery if they don't want to get pregnant in case they get raped?