Dear god I am grateful for your logic. Thank you. .

Allow me to make a small amendment:

I said, "The main difference between homosexuality and all of these terrible things that people really shouldn't do..."

This statement also works:

"The main difference between heterosexuality and all of these terrible things that people really shouldn't do..."

Just sayin'.

What about incest between same-sex family members? There's no risk of pregnancy and therefore harmless except for the normal STD risk.

While you said that you wouldn't address any of the objections to your statement - I feel that almost every point you made can be addressed.

The main difference between homosexuality and all of these terrible things that people really shouldn't do, is that consensual sex between two consenting, adult males or females doesn't have any real negative consequences.

This is very important. Keep in mind that if consent is the prime criteria by which you decide, what sort of sexual conduct/what sort of unions can be considered ethical, then you still should have nothing against incest - consensual sexual practice between two related adults. Whether procreation in incestuous relationships leads to genetically damaged offspring - that is beside the point and needs to dealt with a separate argument. It would be inconsistent to appeal to the consent argument and then arbitrarily not extend it to incestuous couplings.

Secondly, consent is a definitive part of your idea of what constitutes a moral union. A zoophile can just come along and make up their own definition of marriage/relationships that do not require informed consent, only implicit consent. This is the sad after-effect of conceeding that sexual conduct/the definition of marriage can be redefined to suit whatever needs the redefiner has. If gays can do it with marriage, why can't anyone else?

I need you to read the previous sentence and really grasp its meaning. Anyone can pass along STDs if they have them, and I understand that homosexuals are supposed to be more sexually active and promiscuous than straight individuals, but there's a whole subculture of straight punks who fuck like animals, too.

Passing on STDs is irrelevant to the issue at hand, because passing on STD's regardless of whether you are straight or gay is bad, so it doesn't make sense to criticize homosexuals in this regard. I agree. Protection can always be used.

Children can't be trusted to offer consent because children are generally innocent and don't know what the fuck they're doing. Sex can be mentally scarring and can fuck a kid up for life. They don't know any better.

Yet some children are very mature for their age. Treating children as de facto idiots is far too broad. A 15 year old child, in this day and age, is probably already fully sexually active and is fully aware of the possible consequences. As long as she consents, where is the harm?

Also, the way our society treats pedophilia - that may actually be more harmful than the act of pedophilia itself. Children are mentally scarred because society tells them that they should be - that they were violated, something horrible was done to them etc etc. There are many different societies and tribes, where children are seen as sexually available from a very young age - yet in these societies, these children do not become unstable emotional wrecks, they become fully functional adults. That is because they do not see the act of sex as something inherently bad, but as something good - coming of age for example.

While nobody actively supports pedophilia, the philosophical groundwork for defending it is already being out down by liberals and what not.

Pregnancy from incest produces a more shallow genepool and can cause children to have serious birth defects and intensify disorders that are already present.(Although I will submit you don't really have a risk of pregnancy from gay incest, but I still really hope that's not a line people decide to cross. Eugh.)

First of all, your primary criteria was consent - incest is perfectly capable of consent. You even said that passing on STDs is not a valid counter-case, yet you say that incest should be discouraged because there is a chance that birth defects may occur? So because birth defects may occur - that is a good reason to ban an entire spectrum of relationships, but the chance of passing on STDs is not a good enough reason? Why? Isn't this just cherry picking between diseases and ailments?

I'm sorry, but by this argument pretty much anyone who has some hereditary disease, or someone who has certain illnesses running in the family (higher chance of heart-attack, cancer etc) should not be able to have a sexual relationship, because the said relationship may produce a damaged child. You suddenly have a lot of people who can no longer reproduce. Eugenics making a comeback.

Thirdly, it takes generations of inbreeding to produce any sort of noticeable genetic damage. Since you said that what differentiates homosexuality from these other things is consent - then ultimately I see no reason why you would be against incest. In fact, incest is hypothetically even better than homosexuality, because it can still produce perfectly healthy children and thus ensure the continuance of society while homosexual unions do not ensure the continuance of society. It's a dead end.

Fourthly, if you support abortion then there is already an answer for incest couplings. They can also use protection.

By also alluding to the fact that you are disgusted by gay incest (eugh) - this shows that it really isn't about neither consent nor procreation - you just don't happen to like incest couplings. Isn't this just predjudice? Is it okay to predjudiced against siblings in love, but politically incorrect to be against homosexual unions?

So how about zoophilia. Or. However the fuck you spell it. Sex with animals. Animals don't really have the intelligence to offer consent, and they'll fuck anything offered if they're horny enough. I'm just going to say it's wrong because someone's taking advantage of something that can't offer consent, but it's also dangerous as hell. People have died trying to screw the wrong animal.(Or getting screwed by the wrong animal.)

Why do I need consent to have sex with an animal, but not need their consent to kill them for food, kill them for leather, kill them just for thrill of the hunt, test chemicals and medicines on them, imprison them in zoos, force them to do things for our entertainment, force them to breed, force them to produce offspring, take away their children, take them for a walk, ride them and so on and so on?

You even said it yourself - I'm just going to say it's wrong because someone's taking advantage of something that can't offer consent, but it's also dangerous as hell.

You can't even make that claim unless you are a hardcore animal rights advocate. It's intellectually dishonest in the face of how animals are generally treated - as property, as commodity that can be bought, sold and exploited. We do not delegate human morals to animals.

Desecration of a corpse? Yeah that's going to piss off some loved ones who'll want some retribution. Kind of a no-brainer. Although there's always the risk of catching a disease from a rotting corpse.

If I sign a contract voluntarily that will give my body after my death into the ownership of some person who can do with it whatever he sees fit - where's the harm? Just because my family may be offended - that is not a good enough reason to void the contract. What if my family is offended when I wish to cremate my body instead of having a christian burial? Should they get what they want or should I get what I want for my own body?

Catching a disease is the risk of the necrophile. It may happen and it may not happen. I can get diabetes from eating too much candy, but that's a risk I'm willing to take because for me the pleasure I derive outweighs the risk. For the necrophile it would be the same. There is no objection to it. If the necrophile fucks corpses in his private home, without hurting anyone and he got the corpse legally - what's the harm?

You can compare them if you want, I guess. But. There's no other reason to do it than to be a straight up dick or a bigot. I'm not going to answer any disputes on this wall of text, because you should really be ashamed of yourselves if you're really going to try to make a logical, reasonable person's dispute, and religious disputes just make me giggle.

Clearly, it is not as obvious as you make it to be. You do not apply your arguments in a logically consistent manner, you apply them only when it is convenient to you (consent and incest for example). And this final statement is basically just a fancy way of saying - if you disagree, then there is something wrong with you.

I think it is time to open your eyes and see where this sort of philosophy leads you.

The arguments can be applied but that does not mean they should, fighting for equal rights for gay people is more akin to fighting for equal rights for mixed race couples, most people arguing for equal rights are arguing for equal rights for consenting couples. Children and animals cannot consent so the arguments don't work and the offspring of incest quite often have bad birth defects so its not a good idea, non of this applies to homosexuals.

No it is not. It is bigoted. .

Zoophilia. .

Wrong. It is bigoted to compare gays to pedophiles. .

Homosexuality is not inherently harmful if people use safe sex practices, but pedophilia is harmful because it exploits children. Sex with animals is rape because animals cannot consent and incest can result in children with major medical problems. You are a doctor, you should know this.

Zoophilia. .

Liar. You did compare homosexuality to incest. .

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ LBTPIG goodideafornew_acronym Proof that you are lying.

No it is not. It is bigoted. .

Incest is heterosexual.

Are you implying that gay incest cannot exist?

Homosexuality is not inherently harmful if people use safe sex practices, but pedophilia is harmful because it exploits children. Sex with animals is rape because animals cannot consent and incest can result in children with major medical problems. You are a doctor, you should know this.

Thank you. I used a logical answer per your request. I just did not have my morning coffee.

Let me state my reason: pedophilia is harmful because it exploits children, incest is harmful because of the risk of birth defects, and God only knows what diseases you can get from sex with animals. Homosexuality does not have to be harmful. Not every gay wants to screw everything that moves. LOL.

Especially the sex part of it.

Homosexuality has 'sex' in it! Pedophilia and Incest don't. :)