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.
Ha! I get my own side to myself! Well I am confused by the question. Is it that Dana banned you from her debate because you disagreed with her? If so Yes. I believe homosexuality is wrong but, I woun't hate you for it. Dana is just adjusting the religion to the way she wants it.
I was just taking a break from the drama. I unbanned everyone except for one person, because they lied. Honestly, I am so tired of people posting about me, but when I do the same, they whine.
People who justify homosexuality, but at the same time want to be against pedophilia, incest, zoophilia or any other sort of questionable behavior - they are essentially the kind of people who want to eat their cake and still have it.
I'm sorry, but if you're going to use arguments such as:
Love is love
It doesn't hurt anybody
What goes on in my bedroom is my own private business
Morals are subjective
And so on and so on.... then you could at least have the moral and intellectual integrity to take your principles and premises to their logical conclusion, regardless of whether you personally like the conclusion or not. Sadly (or fortunately), all these arguments when taken to their logical end - all of them can be used to justify the above mentioned perversions.
If you start to arbitrarily discriminate between the groups of people, who you wish to defend (gays in this case) and the people you do not wish to defend (incesties, pedos, zoos) - then you are no longer arguing from principle. You are simply pandering to a crowd you happen to like.
"Love is love" comes with the implied condition of it being all around consensual. A 7 year is not aware of consenting to sex, so it's not the same as an two adults of the same gender. An animal is not aware of consenting to sex, so it too can not be compared. As for incest, t=if they are consenting age, and do consent, then I don't care what they are doing.
I will agree that most of Dana's statements trying to defend homosexuality are vastly misguided, but I do believe that there is nothing wrong with being gay. The difference between homosexuality and the other stuff you listed is that two grown adults can consent to sleep with each other while a animal (bestiality) or a minor ( pedophila) can not offer consention.
If a couple is in the process and she never says anything until the very end, which is that she didn't want to have sex. This is actually what happens with women who try and get back at their boyfriends or ex's: they don't say anything and then call for rape charges. Who determines if someone has given consent? It can work any way one looks at it.
It is irrelevant if they are having a romantic relationship or not. Put the same idea into the context of a one night stand. If anything a woman not talking here is more common because she is more likely to be drunk or under the influence.
If she didn't want to have sex she would push him away stop kissing him, or whatever they may be doing and say something, if she is unconscious or so drunk incapable then that is rape.
Because you can't be sure the minor actually understands the situation, and you don't have a reliable way of preventing manipulation. Implicit behavior is unreliable, because the mind can be in internal conflict. Some parts of the brain can react to desirable while other parts will not.
Have you ever stared down from a great height and felt some force pulling you towards the cliff? That phenomenon is actually pretty well understood and is exactly what I am talking about. It appears to be the case that the brain doesn't know how to react because there's no immediate danger (because you are in control of your body), while other parts start firing alarm signals, because there's the very real possibility of falling down and dying.
If adults' minds can be in conflict with themselves, so can minors'.
Because you can't be sure the minor actually understands the situation, and you don't have a reliable way of preventing manipulation. Implicit behavior is unreliable, because the mind can be in internal conflict. Some parts of the brain can react to desirable while other parts will not.
So we are now discriminating based on perceived mental capabilities. Lets not let the Jews reproduce because they can't give consent!
Lets not let the Jews reproduce because they can't give consent!
No. I never said children don't have the right to have sex. I said that adults can't accept childrens' consent because it's unreliable. I am not discriminating against children, I am merely trying to protect them.
If a person gets harmed by a dog and decides to sue, they sue the owner not the dog. The owner is the one responsible for controlling the dog's behavior because a dog is not expected to know any better on its own.
Is it not true that some genocidal mass murderers from the past said that certain races were mentally depraved to a certain extent so as to not be able to know any better on their own? Are we going to discriminate on mental capacities now? I thought that everyone should be treated equally?
Lets say that a male dog starts humping a woman. Is it wrong for her to just stay there and let the dog just keep going even if there is penetration? The dog clearly chose in this situation.
Also, they would probably punish the dog if it killed someone.
Apply the same to a Jew: "My pet Jew just killed someone; I think we should put it down."
Also, it is still irrelevant since adults are ignorant of what is toxic a lot of the times and we should stop them because it is right: ignorance can be applied to a lot of people so stop discriminating.
again with the anit-Semitic remarks. judism is a relgious belief that has no uniformly positive or negative effect on a persons mental state.
Who are you to say that? What if i told you that all Jews, which is a nationality and not just a religion, are genetically mentally retarded? They can't function properly and they should be house pets. "Here, Goldstein, it is time for dinner!"
and if it was something like windex, i am pretty sure you would know it is toxic.
If it was some sort of berry on a camping trip, I am sure that even some adults wouldn't know not to eat it.
Judism is not a nationality, it is a relgion. You can convert to or from judism to another relgion and there is no country where if you are born there, you are a jew.
And if a parent saw a child eating a berry they did not reconize, common sense should tell them not to let them eat it
Judism is not a nationality, it is a relgion. You can convert to or from judism to another relgion and there is no country where if you are born there, you are a jew.
Judaism is a blood line. I am a Jew; I am a Christian. But regardless of that, it still doesn't answer whether or not the dog should be able to hump a woman and who decides who is intelligent enough to make decisions.
And if a parent saw a child eating a berry they did not reconize, common sense should tell them not to let them eat it
The same goes with Jews. Lets make them all pets because they are incapable of recognizing toxic berries.
all of them can be used to justify the above mentioned perversions.
I don't think any of them can (without adding a whole lot of extra assumptions). I will comment on each on them after the TL;DR.
TL;DR
We aren't dealing with mathematical logic here, so to say that these principles and premises logically necessitates any of these "perversions" is wrong. It is not so black and white. Morales are more complicated than this.
What goes on in my bedroom is my own private business
If this is literally the principle undertaken, then I could make a nuclear bomb in my bedroom and no one would have the right to interfere. If this is taken to mean that one's sex life is one's own private business, then this principle begs the question. In either case this isn't a useful argument for any sexual preference.
Morals are subjective
This argument is really bad because it can be thrown right back at who ever uses it, which leaves both parties where they started. But wait, it seems implicit in the principle that it's impossible to get anywhere in ethical discussion, so why should we care?
It may seem implicit, but it's actually wrong. If we assume morals indeed are subjective then it doesn't mean that inter subjective validity is impossible or that morals can't be successfully discussed. Conclusions can be reached. It can be showed that some moral arguments undermine themselves or that moral beliefs are untenable. Even if morals are subjective, then we can still show that pedophilia is wrong (although it might be harder then to just copy-paste the ten commandments).
One may hold that morals are subjective while still holding moral universals. This premise doesn't automatically lead to (or defend) any of the perversions.
Love is love
Passion is not love, and I think it's pretty self-evident that sexual preferences have more to do with passion than love. This premise doesn't address the question.
It doesn't hurt anybody
There has been lots of cases where this hasn't been true so no, not necessarily.
I too was banned from that debate. I have no problem with two people, who are of the age of consent in the society they live in, engaging in whatever relations they please.
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.
(1) Practicing homosexuality has been shown to have mental side effects that are damaging to the person: most homosexual men and women have large numbers of sexual partners that are, many of the times, strangers; oxytocin has been shown to be released during orgasm, which makes on life long attracted to the people one is around during sexual relations. AIDS is also rampant in homosexual circles.
(2) Who says that it exploits the children? Can children not give consent?
(3) Who says that sex with animals is rape? If the animal is not attacking back or struggling, then it follows that the animals intrinsically gave consent; consent does not always have to a verbal indication of readiness, which means that implicit behaviors can be consent for an animal.
(4) AIDS can result from homosexual relations, if one does not use protection. Medically problematic children can be born from incest relations, if one does not use protection. And, since we are not limited by morality here, then abortion is always a solution for couples who desire to have incest relationships.
Aids and multiple sexual partners is also rampant in heterosexuals, many if the times with strangers.
If your sexual partner has not given consent prior to you penetrating them then you are having non consensual sex, if your guess was right and your partner was up for it then lucky you today your not going to jail, if you are wrong and your partner wasn't up for it then your fucked.
You can get Aids from heterosexual sex as well as multiple other nasties, maybe we ought to put a stop to heterosexual sex as well it all seems a bit risky to me.
Men have penises and women have vaginas. They have passions for one another for union, which is sexual and religious: marriage is a mirror of Christ and His church.
As I said, the natural order or man is to be attracted to the opposite sex for union. The natural order of man in this sense is to reflect God and His church.
As I also said, without any sort of morality, then of course homosexuality is justified. However, every other sexual relationship can too.
1. That is antigay propaganda. Monogamous long term same sex relationships are no more harmful than heterosexual ones. In fact, the majority of new AIDS cases are heterosexual. 2. You are disgusting of you do not believe that pedophilia is not harmful to children. How very unchristian of you to support such a thing. I have no respect for people who support the thing that almost killed me. 3. Ew. If you were a Christian you would not support sex with animals. 4. You are just disputing to be rude because I disagree with your religion.
QUOTE:"That is antigay propaganda. Monogamous long term same sex relationships are no more harmful than heterosexual ones. In fact, the majority of new AIDS cases are heterosexual."
This is not antigay propaganda.
Recent survey has shown that gay men are statistically 44 times more likely to be infected with AIDS, and 46 times more likely to be infected with syphilis
The survey was made by the government - run CDC (Centers for Disease Control and prevention). The CDC is one of the major operating components of the Department of Health and Human Services.
1. That is antigay propaganda. Monogamous long term same sex relationships are no more harmful than heterosexual ones. In fact, the majority of new AIDS cases are heterosexual.
Actually, the majority of homosexual relations are non-monogamous.
2. You are disgusting of you do not believe that pedophilia is not harmful to children. How very unchristian of you to support such a thing. I have no respect for people who support the thing that almost killed me.
I don't support pedophilia. I also think that it is harmful. However, I also believe that it is just as harmful as homosexual relations. I am sorry if pedophilia almost killed you.
3. Ew. If you were a Christian you would not support sex with animals.
I don't. That doesn't mean that the logic for homosexual relations leads to relations with animals also.
4. You are just disputing to be rude because I disagree with your religion.
I'm not disputing to be rude; I'm disputing because your logic leads to disgusting things.
Who says that it exploits the children? Can children not give consent?
All that has to be done is lower the age of consent. There are already indications that this can be a far target of the gay rights movement. Specifically: many gay activists in schools speak about "gay teens", how they need to come out, and accept their "orientation". Now, if a teen is gay, that implies he/she is having sex. If they can have sex with other teens, why restrict their rights to do it with older people? That kind of sick logic is typical of the gay rights movement.
All that has to be done is lower the age of consent. There are already indications that this can be a far target of the gay rights movement. Specifically: many gay activists in schools speak about "gay teens", how they need to come out, and accept their "orientation". Now, if a teen is gay, that implies he/she is having sex. If they can have sex with other teens, why restrict their rights to do it with older people? That kind of sick logic is typical of the gay rights movement.
This is quite the concentration of stupid you've put together, you'll find the this sentence in it's core:
"Now, if a teen is gay, that implies he/she is having sex."
I've been straight since I was five when I didn't even know how sex worked.
This is quite the concentration of stupid you've put together
Sorry, but it's not me who's being stupid. Since I've never seen you write anything stupid here before, I blame it on the widespread dis-information and false logical constructs, which are affecting you.
As you've said, you were straight, but you didn't know how sex worked.
It's just your recollection of yourself at that age and older.
That is not a good argument here.
The whole context of "coming out" for gays, is absolutely different.
Recognizing oneself as "gay" has an explicitly sexual meaning to it.
There is no way they can "come out", without knowing exactly what gay sex is all about, and that they want to have it. And there's no way for them to know they want to have it, unless they've had it already, -unlike with women. Why? Well male / male sexual attraction is inherently unnatural, in the sense there is no natural mechanism for it. On the biological level , male / female attraction is driven by pheromones, affecting the human body on many levels. If you believe in energy, it is driven by chakra interaction. None of this is natural for male / male attraction. So, this kind of sexual orientation can only be learned.
If you want to counter this with the "inborn" argument, - the first iteration of a web search on this topic will show you that the hypothesis of inborn gayness has long since been rebuked by science, and is mostly spread by the mass media.
It's just your recollection of yourself at that age and older.
Growing up I had a friend who was a girl and a friend who was a boy. One of them I would kiss when grown-ups weren't looking, one of them I played Power Rangers with. I started masturbating before I knew what sex was and I wasn't picturing naked dragons in my head. You have no understanding of science or the human brain, please stop pretending you know how mine, or anyone else's works.
There is no way they can "come out", without knowing exactly what gay sex is all about, and that they want to have it.
Yes, because every little girl who has ever had a crush on a boy knew she wanted some D. I knew I wanted to take off a girls cloths, but had no idea what to do with her after.
If you believe in energy, it is driven by chakra interaction.
-facepalm- Obviously Homognomes sneak gay thoughts into children's heads while they are sleeping.
This is just dull, I will grind through your arguments, and finally you'll see I'm right. One note first: you claim I know nothing about science. I am a college post - grad, currently doing research on combinatorial projective geometry. This is a pioneer field in science. I know the maths of statistics, and can backup any of my statistical claims. I know formal logic systems, not just first order predicate logic. If you want to discuss any of that, be my guest.
1. You claim that you have something to do with science, but your approach is absolutely non - scientific. If we want to seriously investigate this subject, we should not use words like "child". There is a big difference between pre - puberty, and puberty age.
1.1. My personally experience tells me, that I' d never had any urge to see a girl naked, when I was a child. Yes, I'd heard that it was somehow interesting, from other boys, but that's a learned experience. One boy told be how people have sex, and suggested I do it with some girl. The embarrassing truth is, I really tried doing it with another girl, who was a relative of mine - I was a child and understood nothing about it. Well, we tried it, but of course nothing happened, and I remember thinking that I had no idea what the hell was so interesting about it. As a child, I was completely asexual, and even pressing the ^%# against a girls %$#%$ meant absolutely nothing to me. It was quickly forgotten, only to be remembered much later, as an embarrassing incident.
1.2. Puberty was a completely different story. Of course, there were all those things that you mentioned in your argument. I remember, when I was 11 or 12, one day I suddenly realized that girls' asses were interesting to me. These were the same girls from my class, but my perception of them had changed. Of course, I wanted to see girls naked, and I watched pornography. But I cannot recall one instance, of being somehow physically attracted to a boy. I hadn't heard about any boys at school, or anywhere, who had this attraction - and it's not because such boys would be stigmatized in any way. Gay stigma in my country was a reality at a much older age, and anyway such people were mainly just neglected, not attacked. In fact, in my class there was a "homosexual club" - but that was just for making fun, boys were using this topic to make themselves laugh. Those boys would certainly not start preying on a gay boy, if there ever was one, they would most likely just be surprised and scared of him.
1.3. There were actually two boys at my summer camp, who I knew were masturbating together. But I also knew they both were dreaming of having sex with women, they often shared it with the other boys. So this was just a sexual replacement caused by high hormone levels, and absence of any opportunity to satisfy their heterosexual urges. I still know one of them, he grew up completely heterosexual. And the scientific fact is, that 60% of all people have had their first sexual experience (masturbation), with members of the same sex. That in no way means they were gay, it's just a combination of teenage stupidity, and sexual urge.
2. I, too, used to have a crush on a girl when I was a child, and not once. But that was romantic, not sexual attraction. I have never know or heard of a boy, who was in "love" with another boy. Is my personal experience a credible source of information? Yes, because it is a fact that children are very curious, and so were all my childhood friends and acquaintances. Gossip spread at an incredible speed in our world. If there was but a chance that some boy was in "love" with another boy, believe me, I, and everyone else, would have known it. And during my childhood and teen years, I had attended three different schools.
3. This all just confirms what I've said: sexual attraction between males and females is natural. It starts at puberty, when the hormones begin to affect our perception and behavior. But there is no natural mechanism of sexual attraction between same sex people. There can be a combination of psychological features, and environment, that leads to choosing the homosexual path. Once this is done, the hormonal structure and nervous system become affected, and an addiction is formed. Initially, this is not natural , but learned behavior. The human body is indeed capable of operating in different modes. But that does not mean that all of them are healthy.
ME: If you believe in energy, it is driven by chakra interaction.
-facepalm- Obviously Homognomes sneak gay thoughts into children's heads while they are sleeping.
First: since it's impossible to facepalm across the internet, I assume that you're facepalming yourself
Second: I have seen miracles done, by people who use energy, and heal others. There is no joke here. People were healed, when ordinary medicine was completely helpless.
Also, I have had some acquaintance with Philippine healers. I actually filmed some of their operations at close range, there was no chance of them cheating in any way.
I am acquainted with science well enough, to know that it cannot explain everything.
First: since it's impossible to facepalm across the internet, I assume that you're facepalming yourself
Yes, if you goggle facepalm, you will see that it is something done by one placing their hand on their face.
Second: I have seen miracles done, by people who use energy, and heal others. There is no joke here.
Yes there is. You said yourself you haven't seen me write anything stupid on here, that's because I rarely do, and when I do I own up to it. I enjoy discussing things with people who are knowledgeable, and I enjoy answering the questions of those who are not, there is no in-between. Take care.
ME: First: since it's impossible to facepalm across the internet, I assume that you're facepalming yourself
Yes, if you goggle facepalm, you will see that it is something done by one placing their hand on their face.
If you facepalm yourself, you don't have to share it with me.
ME: Second: I have seen miracles done, by people who use energy, and heal others. There is no joke here.
Yes there is. You said yourself you haven't seen me write anything stupid on here, that's because I rarely do, and when I do I own up to it. I enjoy discussing things with people who are knowledgeable, and I enjoy answering the questions of those who are not, there is no in-between. Take care.
You can joke about anything, that doesn't make you smart or knowledgeable.
I have healed people myself in this way. I have lost that gift now.
I have witnessed some situations, when traditional medicine was completely helpless, yet these methods helped people.
Science has never disproved the reality of these phenomena.
Science does not have an accurate picture of reality in its wholeness. It only creates models of reality, which are more or less consistent with experimental facts.
THIS IS WHAT I WROTE: Specifically: many gay activists in schools speak about "gay teens", how they need to come out, and accept their "orientation". Now, if a teen is gay, that implies he/she is having sex. If they can have sex with other teens, why restrict their rights to do it with older people? That kind of sick logic is typical of the gay rights movement.
YOUR REPLY: The same can be said about straight people.
1. I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT STRAIGHT OR GAY PEOPLE. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT, WHICH HAS STRAIGHT PEOPLE PARTICIPATING IN IT.
2. ONLY SOMEONE WHO IS COMPLETELY INSANE CAN SAY THAT STRAIGHT PEOPLE, OTHER THAN LGBT SUPPORTERS, WANT TEENS TO "COME OUT", AND HAVE SEX WITH OLDER GAYS.
(1) Practicing homosexuality has been shown to have mental side effects that are damaging to the person: most homosexual men and women have large numbers of sexual partners that are, many of the times, strangers; oxytocin has been shown to be released during orgasm, which makes on life long attracted to the people one is around during sexual relations. AIDS is also rampant in homosexual circles. Because straight people never do those things. Rolls eyes.
And heterosexual acts are evil as well if not in marriage. Also, homosexuality many time end up being a lifestyle, in which the homosexual has radically more sexual partners than a heterosexual man or woman does.
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a lifestyle. Some gays do not act on their sexual orientation which they did not choose. There is a difference between attraction and action.
Who are you to decide what a loving committed couple can and cannot do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Who are you to enforce your antigay bigotry on other people? How would you like it if I told you what you could and could not do in your private life? There is not one single damn thing wrong with being gay and acting on it, as long as only consenting adults are involved. If I meet someone and we want to get married, that is our right as long as we are not hurting anyone. What I do is between God, myself, and any potential partner. I am not trying to screw anything that moves. I am looking for someone to spend the rest of my life with, be they man or woman, and that is my right.
Are you going to facepalm all day or are you actually going to defend your belief? I believe that you realize that they are the same and don't want to admit it to yourself.