CreateDebate


Debate Info

63
63
Yes, that describes it. No, and you're a bigot!
Debate Score:126
Arguments:118
Total Votes:142
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, that describes it. (45)
 
 No, and you're a bigot! (45)

Debate Creator

BigOats(1403) pic



LBTPIG: good idea for new acronym?

The human (sex) rights movement has made gigantic strides lately. Now, gays are free at last, free to marry the person they love (if it isn't a child).

I think it's obvious things aren't stopping here!

What about those polygamous people, they're not hurting anyone. And they just want to be happy. Those two statements make up the canonical proof, that some new kind of marriage should be legalized - according to PC.

Same goes for incest. Doesn't "hurt" anyone, if people are consenting, e.t.c.

But there's a problem with all this. The sex rights movement will need to update its acronym, LGBT, to represent also polygamy, and incest.

So, it should be something like: LGBTPI. But that's kind of hard to pronounce, so I don't think it will catch.

If we change the letters order, that will make an easier acronym: LBTPIG

which stands for "Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Polygamous Incestuous Gay".

Do you think this is a good idea for the acronym?

Yes, that describes it.

Side Score: 63
VS.

No, and you're a bigot!

Side Score: 63
2 points

I think it's an easy to remember acronym.

Still, I'm sure I wouldn't want to see one of those (I mean lesbian bisexual transgender polygamous incestuous gays).

Side: Yes, that describes it.
1 point

Great, so they're just a single typo away from 'BLTPIG?' Good one!

Side: No, and you're a bigot!
BigOats(1403) Disputed
2 points

Yes, that would fit it even better.

Why are you disputing, though?

Side: Yes, that describes it.
1 point

Side: Yes, that describes it.

If you want to be able to say all of the things you hate/love, with only a few letters.

Side: Yes, that describes it.
3 points

The I stands for intersex, not incest. .

Side: No, and you're a bigot!
Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

In the spirit of togetherness, it should mean both.

Side: Yes, that describes it.
Sitara(11082) Disputed
3 points

Wrong. Only a bigot would associate incest with LGBTI people. .

Side: Yes, that describes it.
1 point

You are completely right.

The P also stands for pedophilia, and B for bestiality.

Side: Yes, that describes it.
3 points

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, and you're a bigot!

LGBT members do not support incest, though polygamy may be supported by certain induviduals's

Side: No, and you're a bigot!
3 points

Incest and polygamy can have their own group- they are in a completely different category.

Side: No, and you're a bigot!
3 points

Better a pig than a troll. At least the pig is relatively intelligent.

Side: No, and you're a bigot!
2 points

Polygamy does hurt someone. It hurts the children and the wives, if the relationship has children and multiple wives. The multiple wives will eventually, if not immediately fight for the man's love, which puts a burden on the man and causes stress for all parties of polygamous marriages. Stress causes many medical, emotional and psychological problems, so its hurting them. The wives will scorn the children of the other wife/wives in the relationship which will hurt the children psychologically and sometimes even physically. The wives may develop inferiority complexes while the male may likely develop a superiority complex. Of course, these things don't have to happen, but they tend to when looking at other polygamous engagements. And I only spoke about polygamy with one man and multiple women, I acknowledge this.

Heterosexual incest creates children that have genetic, physical and mental complication. I don't think I have to elaborate on that any further, but I can if I need to. Homosexual incest...I actually don't see the problem with. Bestiality and Paedophilia are harmful for obvious reasons that I can explain if asked. Regarding the question, BLTPIG would be a better acronym but regarding the description, I do not agree with the acronym.

Side: No, and you're a bigot!
1 point

You make a lot of assumptions that aren't particularly valid.

Some people are happy and comfortably polyamorous; these individuals could participate in a polygamist, polyandrist, or bidirectional polyamorous relationship without the issues that you note; your issues are really limited to individuals who are naturally monogamous AND involved in a polyamorous relationship. This is roughly equivalent to a homosexual who enters a heterosexual relationship- of course they won't be happy, and they made that choice! I acknowledge that a lot of polygamy has these problems, but most polygamy is not so much a choice made by all parties but rather a part of culture and religion. Polygamy hurts nobody- forcing oneself into a mold that one doesn't fit does.

Heterosexual incest need not create children at all. Suppose no children are desired, or adoption is opted for? Suppose that a vasectomy or tubal ligation is in the mix?

Side: Yes, that describes it.
2 points

It is certainly not a good acronym since.

1) Polygamy has nothing to do with sexuality or gender identity.

2) Incest has nothing to do with sexuality or gender identity.

Side: No, and you're a bigot!
1 point

Polyamory as opposed to monogamy certainly is an important factor in ones sexuality. Incest, not necessarily, except for the small proportion of individuals that have specifically fetishized it.

Side: Yes, that describes it.
Horus(11) Disputed
2 points

Sexuality in the LBGT context is and should remain exclusively related to sexual orientation and sexual orientation only, with regard to preference for a particular gender or both. Any expansion with things like Polygamy would lessen the recognition sought for by the gay community and with Incest Pedophilia and Bestiality and Necrophilia...they really have little connection either, since gender preference is not the issue..

Sexual orientation and gender identity, that is what the LGBT organisations stand for.

Side: No, and you're a bigot!
1 point

What about animals and children? If one is going to exclude them, then one is going to have to differentiate between them. The only way one can do that is to say that animals and children are not reasonable enough to give consent. However, that then raises the question as to who is. Is a mentally disabled person? Is an old lady? Could someone not determine that anyone contrary to this person's beliefs is illogical and, therefore, unreasonable and cannot give consent (i.e. eugenics)? One either has to allow all forms of sexual expression or limit it by morality, which can only be done in an objective manner, which can only be established by an objective God, which means that no one but married heterosexual relationship can have sexual relations.

Side: No, and you're a bigot!
Stryker(849) Disputed
3 points

All they have to do is profess belief in their own god and say that he is the reference point for morality, they now have an objective morality to live under that includes whatever sexual perversions they desire.

Side: Yes, that describes it.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

You and I both know that the majority of religions exclude all sexuality outside of heterosexual married couples. They can profess belief in their own god; however, they will know that what they "believe" is not true.

Side: No, and you're a bigot!
BigOats(1403) Disputed
2 points

Thanks for supporting me, doesn't matter if it's on the other side.

There are several distinct points in your argument, and I'll have to comments them one at a time:

1. Regarding consent: I agree that you're basically right, but the logic is a little bit more complicated. You mentioned mentally disabled, and also old people. But there is a legal mechanism, that can prevent their marriage: they can be acknowledged as legally incompetent. I think mentally disabled people are implicitly legally incompetent, and they must have a legal guardian. With an old person, this can be ruled by the court, if their marriage is used by someone for ill purposes.

2. However, there are possibilities for attacking the age of consent law. One of them is to start promoting the thesis, that teens reach social maturity at a lower age, and then make relevant law changes. Next, they could start arguing that if a person is socially mature, it is a violation of his rights, to restrict him from all the rights that other socially mature people have, including the right to have sex. Since the gay rights movement has a whole army of lawyers, it will not be impossible to pull this off.

Now regarding marriage.

There are several levels to this.

First of all, religion is not necessary, for one to make a decision in favor of being monogamous and heterosexual.

For example, I personally tend to be faithful in relationships, and I almost always think each one will never end (there were some exceptions, since I am not without sin).

I also find male homosexuality sick and disgusting, but at the same time don't hate those people just for being homosexual.

So, I am naturally monogamous and heterosexual.

However, I really find marriage not a suitable option for me.

There are three reasons:

1. I can be sure of myself, but I cannot be sure of my wife. If she is unfaithful, then that's basically the end for me. I want to have the right to end the relationships. For that reason, I do not want to commit myself with vows, to anyone.

2. I do not want to impose any obligation on the person I love. If she, for some reason, no longer wants to be with me, I will respect that, and let her go. Marriage means a restriction on that right.

3. Usually, when you marry somebody, you marry their family. And their family marries you. And your families marry each other. Of course, this is sarcasm, I do not mean it literally. The point is: there will be a whole lot of people, poking their nose into your relationship, and thinking that they are doing it rightfully. I would definitely want to avoid that.

Now, regarding your theistic argument:

One either has to allow all forms of sexual expression or limit it by morality, which can only be done in an objective manner, which can only be established by an objective God, which means that no one but married heterosexual relationship can have sexual relations.

Although I consider myself a Christian, I do not think appealing to the Bible in its entirety, can be a good argument. Why?

1. There are many places in the Bible, when polygamous relations are mentioned, as being absolutely normal.

2. The Bible contradicts itself in many places. I think that if you respect God, you cannot believe in contradicting statements, which are made in his regard. God cannot contradict himself. Therefore, if you really believe, you have no other option, but to assume that there are parts of the Bible, that do not represent the word of God. After all, the Bible was written by men.

So, basically, only your faith can guide you, when you decide what can be regarded as Godly, in the Bible.

Side: Yes, that describes it.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

You have missed the point entirely. You have implicitly consented to Hitler type doctrine, which is discrimination based on mental capabilities.

Also, the Bible has no contradictions in it.

Side: No, and you're a bigot!
Horus(11) Disputed
1 point

If the object of your desire cannot give legal consent to sex then you might well have a legal duty not to attempt to have sex with it...regardless of what the Bible says.

Having sex with your sister children and animals and vulnerable people etc.. is illegal and is outlawed because it is inherently exploitative, it is rape or incest in the case of humans.

If you don't understand why animals and children should not be excluded then you do not understand the concepts of exploitation or rape, since obviously unrelated homosexuals above the age of consent who freely engage in sexual activity are not being raped or being incestuous.

One does not have to allow all forms of sexual expression or revert to religious puritanical bigotry and persecution in order to maintain a healthy moral society.

Mutual consent between individuals able to make that decision freely without fear or coercion.

That is the dividing line between sexual right and wrong.

That means homosexuals and heterosexuals and bisexuals can all stand on one side of the line together.

The incestuous, the pedophiles, the necrophiliacs, the bestiality enthusiasts...on the other. Should they act on their desires.

Side: Yes, that describes it.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
0 points

If the object of your desire cannot give legal consent to sex then you might well have a legal duty not to attempt to have sex with it...regardless of what the Bible says.

Who determines whether something can give consent or not? What if a dog comes up behind a girl, penetrates, and goes at it, while the girl enjoys it?

Having sex with your sister children and animals and vulnerable people etc.. is illegal and is outlawed because it is inherently exploitative, it is rape or incest in the case of humans.

How is having sex with any of those things exploitative? Why is incest wrong? How is it rape?

One does not have to allow all forms of sexual expression or revert to religious puritanical bigotry and persecution in order to maintain a healthy moral society.

Yes, you do. You can't understand this until you are a Christian.

Mutual consent between individuals able to make that decision freely without fear or coercion.

Who determines consent? Why coercion? Is peer pressure an excuse?

That means homosexuals and heterosexuals and bisexuals can all stand on one side of the line together.

You have yet to give a good argument for the positive of this.

Side: No, and you're a bigot!