There seems to be an issue with this debate.

Norcalkev, from my point of view you seem to be getting quite defensive here...

The point of creating a debate is to allow people to voice their opinions and give everyone equal opportunity to say what they want, even if it's about you. I don't know who's downvoting some of these arguments, so I'm going to (somewhat blindly) assume it's you, since you're disputing those you think have the wrong idea. Be a bit more fair and let them say what they want and others decide, 'kay? The person putting forth the debate should usually be the last to give their opinion on the matter, seeing as that the debate is meant to see what everyone else thinks.

That aside, I agree a bit with both sides, though a bit more with everyone sharing.

From my own experience, at least, and those I've heard of, I haven't really heard of much in the way of molestation, rape, or even much staring ever going on in gyms and public bathrooms, even with a homosexual present in the area. So safety, as far as I know, isn't really the issue.

Additionally...

You're not comfortable with the idea of changing clothes with someone present that might stare? Oh, I'm sorry. Would you like for every gay person in the room to come out to you now and then leave for the sake of your comfort? The same, I believe, goes with transgenders. The discomfort in most people lies in knowing that there's something there that they're not comfortable with. So, of course, one would automatically know that a transgender is in the room. Still, trusting and being comfortable with their presence is up to you and no-one else. They can't control what they are, but you can control your level of trust in them.

"How would I explain that to my child?" Is a common question for lots of social matters. Well, we've managed to progress into telling kids that being a different color is okay, that liking the same sex is okay, so what's the trouble in explaining to your little girl that the reason there's a man in the ladies' room is because that person was born in the wrong body, and that they're a girl on the inside?

The only concern I'd have with this one is that plenty of perverts and pedophiles of both sexes would pretend to be transgender in order to get into those rooms. Maybe some form of legal identification could be used? That would be an issue for gender-fluid people, though...

Last would be the issue of discrimination. We've seen it in the past, such as with the de-segregation of schools; people won't be very accepting at first and might commit terrible acts of hate toward transgender individuals. I'm going to take a much less humane point on this one and say that you need a few eggs cracked to make an omelet. In other words, conflict and loss has to be endured before progress arrives.

While I usually like to politely disagree, in this instance I feel compelled to say that you, sir, have nary an idea of what you're saying.

Evolution does not occur socially, not unless you're talking about the evolution of culture or languages. Physical evolution, that is, the passing of genes to future generations, involves the transfer of one's own genome, which is made up from deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), to offspring (plus the combining of one's own genome with that of your mate). DNA is a physical substance, and the transferring of it to the next generation is the result of the combination of the sperm and egg cells to form a zygote.

In other words, if there is a gay gene, it cannot be passed down through having extra "parents", which would be a social factor, not a biological one.

From the moment a zygote is formed, is it not a new multicellular being in development? Wouldn't that therefore mean that an abortion is the murder of an individual human being's life?

Most of the arguments I hear about whether or not it's murder usually involve trying to establish when it is considered a human. I'd argue that human genes and cells are all that's necessary; organs and skeletal structure aren't even done developing until after birth, so what's the use of counting them?

I wouldn't say it's immoral; it's more socially looked down upon. There's a difference: morals deal with hurting or helping people; social views are more about beliefs and opinions of people collectively.

Well, if we're born into this world naked, isn't it wrong to cover that up shamefully and wear any clothes at all?

Besides, we see it as wrong because of the associations we build from observation: we call people who wear it whores because they happen to be the ones wearing it. But what if that had never been that way? What if instead, every good and socially upstanding girl wore g-strings and every promiscuous girl wore big 'ol knickers? Our opinions would be different.

It's all a matter of opinion and association. Personally, I don't care what someone chooses to wear so long as I don't have to see any of their gross parts.

The largest problem with this issue is that it's so emotionally loaded, and morals and values seem to always come into play. In the case of morality, it is technically murder, so whether it's right or not depends on whether you think the ends justifies the means or whether the action is wrong regardless of its consequences. It's a matter of perspective, morally speaking.

Shall we look at it a bit more pragmatically and cynically?

Cynically speaking:

We already play with the lives of other living creatures for our own enjoyment (such as zoos, pets, show animals, and unfortunately fighting animals), and us humans are just another hunk of meat like any other animal. So emotional attachment to our own species aside, what's really another murder of a piece of meat?

At the end of the day, a baby is just another living thing. Killing it would be the same as killing an ant, if all living things are truly equal.

Pragmatically speaking:

There are many factors to look into. If there is a risk of a mother dying from giving birth, aborting the child means she gets to live, whereas risking the birth anyway means that the child might die during the process, too, in which case you're risking two lives.

If the parent simply cannot afford to take care of the child, yes, there is the option of putting the baby up for adoption. But many adopted children grow to have difficult lives, including having bad adopted families, feeling anxiety at not knowing their real parents, or feeling like they don't belong. So do you really want to put your kid up for adoption and possibly put them through years of suffering and pain for the sake of following your morals?

Even in the case of a parent being able to take care of their child, consider the fact that they have their own life as well. The US Constitution gives a right to life, but it also gives the right to the pursuit of happiness, which you might deprive a woman of if you tell her to keep the baby and put her own life on hold. If you're going to ruin one life only, which do you choose: the one that hasn't lived to do anything yet but also has done nothing to deserve death, or the one that still has so much to accomplish and do with their own life?

In the case of rape, the child might be a reminder to the parent of what happened to them, which could cause lifelong stress and guilt to the parent.

Yes, one could give birth to the child and then put them up for adoption instead of ending the pregnancy early. But have you ever experienced the pain of a pregnancy? And, more importantly, the pain of giving birth? If you're willing to go through the pain, go ahead. But everyone still has the right to follow their survival instinct of avoiding pain and sickness.

In other words, there are tons of factors to consider. Personally, I look at the fact that we tell someone to "keep up the good work", not "what you're doing is good, but I'm giving you this to do instead that you'll have to work on for 18 years".

The question, I think, is not how much you can question, but how well you could handle your own skepticism.

We're at the point at which we don't even know if reality is a thing. At this point, there's nothing you can't question. However, what conclusions you come to are what will affect your attitude. If I see a paper move in a windless place, I could just say that I have no idea what did that. If I make that conclusion but can't handle it, I might feel confused, anxious, and maybe even a little paranoid because of how much I'm questioning reality. Or I could just shrug it off.

Question reality all you want, just try and live with what you have whether you assume it's real or not. Kinda like God: the universe seems to be the same with or without it, so why stress about knowing?

I do not believe in the God of the Bible, no. I do believe in God; I believe in a God so inexplicably immense, complicated, and intelligent that it transcends all human understandings of physics and logic: it is a being we will never even come close to imagining, let alone knowing of. Why is the Christian God a giant man living in the clouds that feels love and compassion and hatred and disappointment and rage and care? Because all humanity can imagine is what humanity can see and hear and feel and smell and taste, and our imagination is just combinations of what we already know. Thus, the God we've thought of for so long is a human God, because that's just the smartest thing we know of.

I think of something that thinks of everything down to the path of every quark in the whole of this ever-expanding creation, not a man that likes to admire his own walking creations on one tiny, muddy spec of a spec of a spec of the universe, and create entire dimensions meant to torture or reward their insignificant little souls.

Second chances are not exactly about what someone deserves, not when it comes to criminals. To spare them is to show them mercy and show them that they are worth at least some kindness. That's the first step towards redeeming them and teaching them to be better people. If we all desire to kill those who do wrong, doesn't that send them the message that they'll never be anything more than scum? And if they think they'll never change, then they really won't and will just continue with their illegal/harmful activities. Show a man he can be more than that, show him how to be, show him how happy he could be as a good person, and he might just decide to work to change.

In conclusion, no. An assassin would not do right by killing a criminal just because they're a criminal.

Not totally. It'd be like trying to divide a number until you get to zero: you'll get infinitely closer, but you'll never actually get there.

The problem is that we humans are animals; it is in our nature to be selfish, violent, greedy, spiteful, and inconsiderate of others. It isn't inherently bad; those are our natural survival instincts. However, they conflict with our desire to be peaceful and cooperative. So even if every single human learned to be loving and respectful, there are simply too many opportunities for us to have bad experiences that make us prone to giving in to our urge to serve ourselves and justify our darkest feelings and desires by blaming others and forming stereotypes.

The difficult part of this topic is that there are several factors that need accounting for, including maturity, responsibility, and ease of influence. Two mature and responsible 13 year-olds know what they're doing and can keep safe despite their age; an immature/irresponsible 25 year-old is going to make a mess for themselves eventually, even if they're legally an adult. One simple age would be a guess as to when most people become mature enough to handle it.

That being said, a lack of a legal age would mean that a 35 year-old could convince a young, impressionable teen to have sex, even if the individual might not have wanted to at first. In other words, a lack of a legal age makes it harder to deal with cases of kids being taken advantage of.

If kids were to have sex with kids, and adults have sex with adults, it'd be fine to have no legal age. The issue is sex between minors and adults. Perhaps there should be a defined age gap they need to fall within? I'd say six years isn't too bad.