CreateDebate


Debate Info

52
47
Yes, it is wrong. No, it is not wrong.
Debate Score:99
Arguments:93
Total Votes:103
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, it is wrong. (39)
 
 No, it is not wrong. (43)

Debate Creator

lolzors93(3225) pic



Banned from Dana's debate (No longer am I): Incest, homosexuality, and pedophili

Since Dana banned be from her debate.

Yes, it is wrong.

Side Score: 52
VS.

No, it is not wrong.

Side Score: 47

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.

Side: Yes, it is wrong.
Sitara(11080) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: No, it is not wrong.
Sitara(11080) Disputed
1 point

Wrong. I am not adjusting religion. I am staying true to the Scriptures in the original languages, not man's OPINION of them.

Side: No, it is not wrong.
3 points

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.

Side: No, it is not wrong.
Quocalimar(6470) Disputed
2 points

"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.

Side: Yes, it is wrong.
1 point

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.

Side: Yes, it is wrong.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

Why can't animals or minors give consent? Implicit behavior is enough to determine whether or not the being desires sexual relations.

Side: No, it is not wrong.
BigOats(1449) Disputed
1 point

Quite often, the situation is reverse: dogs harass humans, who do not contest.

Only a good slap on the snout can stop them from doing it.

Haven't you ever seen dogs groping someone's leg, or trying to stuff their nose wherever they think is OK?

In that case, if a human consents to the animal, will he / she be committing rape?

I don't think so.

It's disgusting, but it isn't rape.

So, portraying animals as innocent victims, is a bad argument here.

Side: No, it is not wrong.
Nebeling(1117) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: Yes, it is wrong.
2 points

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.

Side: No, it is not wrong.
Sitara(11080) Disputed
1 point

You are not banned. .

Side: Yes, it is wrong.
1 point

It is perfectly justified and logical to compare them to one another.

Side: No, it is not wrong.
Sitara(11080) Clarified
1 point

No it is not. It is bigoted. .

Side: Yes, it is wrong.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

Is it not bigoted to discriminate against those who desire incest?

Side: Yes, it is wrong.
1 point

You are not banned. .

Side: No, it is not wrong.
lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

I was before.

Side: Yes, it is wrong.
Sitara(11080) Disputed
1 point

Whatever bigot. .

Side: Yes, it is wrong.
1 point

Seeing as how you are not banned, it would be dishonest to keep this post up.

Side: No, it is not wrong.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

I'm going to keep it up because I don't know if I will be banned again once I take it down.

Side: Yes, it is wrong.
Sitara(11080) Disputed
1 point

Then I will post about you. .

Side: No, it is not wrong.
1 point

Stryker is not banned either buddy boy. .

Side: No, it is not wrong.
lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

He was.

Side: Yes, it is wrong.
1 point

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.

Side: No, it is not wrong.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

(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.

Side: Yes, it is wrong.
TheAshman(2299) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: No, it is not wrong.
Sitara(11080) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: No, it is not wrong.
1 point

Practicing homosexuality has been shown to have mental side effects that are damaging to the person

Proof: http://narth.com/docs/symptoms.html

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.

Side: No, it is not wrong.
Sitara(11080) Disputed
1 point

(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.

Side: No, it is not wrong.