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.
Oh yeah, I am. I just think that the argument of homosexuals can be used to support any sexual act and people agreeing with me is just confirming my view.
A gave a very good reason in the argument you disputed.
In countries where law is precedent - based, it will create a legal precedent for adopting even crazier laws.
First thing that comes into my head: this will be followed by "education" in schools, and get the kids even more screwed up than they are now.
They're now teaching kids it's OK to be gay...imagine if they add to this, that it's OK to ^%#$& your mother...or father? after all, gayness has now become "norm".
This is serious stuff. Usually, if such marginal movements can endorse some kind of madness, that means they will.
Here is what the LGBT have already been able to achieve in the USA:
- the toilet law, which allows boys into girl's restrooms, and vice versa, at schools.
- forcing a college professor who does not approve of homosexuality, to watch gay porn
- forcing the boy-scouts to accept gay troop leaders
- forcing small hotels to service gays against the owners' faith
- outlawing psychiatrists who aid gays in quitting their lifestyle
- attacks on Christian preachers, for citing the Bible in their churches
- outlawing public citing of statistical data on gay health
- false statements about genetic origins of homosexuality, long since refuted by science, being constantly cited by mass media
Finally, lets make a comparison with gay marriage.
They have achieved legalization of gay marriage in many places, but only a small percent of gays have got married. The objective of this was to create legal precedent. After all, if gays are the "norm", how can we not teach about gayness in schools?
They're now teaching kids it's OK to be gay...imagine if they add to this, that it's OK to ^%#$& your mother...or father? after all, gayness has now become "norm".
I see no problem in teaching kids how to be themselves.
This is serious stuff. Usually, if such marginal movements can endorse some kind of madness, that means they will.
Im afraid I still cannot see a reason to ban incest. You simply gave me insane laws then assumed that it will get worse by legalizing incest.
First give me a reason why society must reject incest relationships. Then we will continue
Finally, lets make a comparison with gay marriage.
They have achieved legalization of gay marriage in many places, but only a small percent of gays have got married. The objective of this was to create legal precedent. After all, if gays are the "norm", how can we not teach about gayness in schools?
You do realize that its still too early to assume results, right?
I see no problem in teaching kids how to be themselves.
They are not teaching kids to be themselves. They are teaching kids to say "yes" to every sexual impulse they have, and those are two different things. Sex is not everything. Kids are being artificially sexed up by modern society, both directly and indirectly. Their hormones start raging after a certain age, they are unused to this and, usually, have no idea how to grasp hold of the situation. They may get silly ideas that they are "gay", and now the LGBT education is brainwashing them that they have to accept such impulses as proof of their "gayness". I think one has to blind not to see, that this is a form of recruiting.
You simply gave me insane laws then assumed that it will get worse by legalizing incest.
These insane laws were endorsed by people who used the same logic.
It's all about "love", it doesn't hurt anyone, e.t.c.
LGBT feeds on all kinds of marginal ideas.
Now look where this has taken America?
Do you really want the land of the free to become the land of the gay?
They are not teaching kids to be themselves. They are teaching kids to say "yes" to every sexual impulse they have
Nope, exposing them to the awareness that weird people exists is not the same as promoting their existence.Same logic was applied on the early days of abandoning the slavery of the blacks.
In the end, everything still lies in the way they were nurtured
These insane laws were endorsed by people who used the same logic.
Nope,
the toilet law, which allows boys into girl's restrooms, and vice versa, at schools.
forcing a college professor who does not approve of homosexuality, to watch gay porn
attacks on Christian preachers, for citing the Bible in their churches
false statements about genetic origins of homosexuality, long since refuted by science, being constantly cited by mass media
I see no logical reason behind these laws. The explanation why it still hasnt been removed is because people are wise enough to just ignore it
Nope, exposing them to the awareness that weird people exists is not the same as promoting their existence.Same logic was applied on the early days of abandoning the slavery of the blacks.
Are you serious or just having fun? How can anyone "promote" the existence of black people? There can be no comparison of the black liberation movement, and gay "freedom".
Kids are quite aware that weird people exist, and if they're not, they'll find it out by themselves. Kids aren't idiots.
I see no logical reason behind these laws. The explanation why it still hasn't been removed is because people are wise enough to just ignore it
This is only growing in strength in the USA...strange that I know it, and you don't.
Not to mean anything, I just can't understand why you people are so ignorant to things are destroying your country.
Are you serious or just having fun? How can anyone "promote" the existence of black people? There can be no comparison of the black liberation movement, and gay "freedom".
During the early days of slavery, blacks are considered properties and never granted humanitarian rights. When they gained freedom, they were still oppressed through constant discrimination and racism.
I see no difference in comparing those days with how gays fight for their rights today. And the taboo topic of incest relationships deserves equal attention
Kids are quite aware that weird people exist, and if they're not, they'll find it out by themselves. Kids aren't idiots.
Aye, but they learn how to treat those "weird people" by immitating their adult peers.
Should they discriminate or befriend? Thats up for the parents to teach
This is only growing in strength in the USA...strange that I know it, and you don't.
Not to mean anything, I just can't understand why you people are so ignorant to things are destroying your country.
USA consists of plenty of independent states. Some states can have their own rules that other states will simply ignore.
It should definitely be legal. There is literally no reason why two or more people shouldn't be able to love each other and participate in a consenting relationship. The only remotely plausible argument against incest is "inbreeding causing deformed children", which, in itself, isn't a very strong argument, and it only covers heterosexual incest, as of course, homosexuals cannot create children. There are plenty worse situations that have a higher risk for this to happen: the woman being over 40, having genetic disorders in either parent's genetic code, being a teen, using drugs/alcohol etc. With just plain incest, the risk only raises a few measly percentages from a non-incestuous childbirth, a change so small, it just doesn't even matter. There is only one, extremely rare case where there can be problems, and that is having a long line of incestuous children, spanning several generations, which is highly unlikely to happen in this day and age. Plus, we have several methods of contraception that can help reduce the chance of pregnancy any further, and if the incestuous couple wants children, they could just always adopt. We have way too many people on this planet anyway.
1. Because inbreeding results into defective children
The chances of producing defective children occurs to everyone. By this logic, are you saying that people with raised chances of defective birth should be condemned?
2. Because Westermarck Effect says that close family members should not
Same argument was raised towards homosexuals and same argument will be raised again. Be my guest.
We don't need it here...This only distract from the real human rights issues. We've got so many real problems. Gays aren't by far the most oppressed, they're not oppressed at all.
Gay marriage is an artificial construct, which does not help anyone, but creates additional problems. A mush as I distrust our government, I'm glad they were capable of learning from your anti - example, in regard to the whole PC agenda.
But the issue of homosexuality and incest belongs to humanitarian issues. I see no problem in tackling them
In my country, the idea of defending human rights is not shared by everyone. This is the more so, that many people were literally robbed in the 90-s, under the guise of "democracy". So, these terms cause bad associations, for many people.
The more we associate dubious agendas with the human rights movement, the less followers this movement will have in my country.
We have many direct human rights problems, that are not being resolved. For example, a huge number of young men are being tortured, killed, or driven to suicide every year, in the so - called "conscript army". This army is more of a sadistic sect, which has very little to do with military training. The government is doing nothing to address this issue, and criminal investigation of the said atrocities is usually hindered by the authorities. That is a real human rights issue.
Search for "Oppression of Homosexuals". You'll find plenty
Yes, there's plenty to be found there, but it all sounds more like politically correct propaganda. While it is true that gays are more or less often victims of hate crimes (depends on region), this is an issue of law enforcement failure, which in its turn is a huge problem for Russia. But this issue affects not only the gays, but the vast majority of the population.
Regarding oppression of gays: I have no statistics for Russia, but in the USA gays do not qualify for being an oppressed minority.
Quote: "Homosexuals do not meet the three criteria that characterize minority groups that have been accorded special legal protections."
The three criteria being: economic deprivation, political powerlessness, and immutable characteristics.
Homosexuals do not meet any of those three criteria.
The only problem I see is the closeminded society. It does not harm anyone who allows logic above emotions
As I've already shown you, the laws on gay marriage have already created some dangerous legal precedents, which, when made full use of by the gay agenda, will harm most of the people, and the country as a whole.
In my country, the idea of defending human rights is not shared by everyone.
Doesnt fit my definition of equality
The government is doing nothing to address this issue, and criminal investigation of the said atrocities is usually hindered by the authorities. That is a real human rights issue
A bigger one that's a fact. But i still cant find any faults in protecting homosexual relationships.
But this issue affects not only the gays, but the vast majority of the population.
Still, I have a reason to fight for the legalization of homosexual realtionships
Homosexuals do not meet any of those three criteria
That doesnt mean that we have the freedom to take away their human rights
As I've already shown you, the laws on gay marriage have already created some dangerous legal precedents, which, when made full use of by the gay agenda, will harm most of the people, and the country as a whole.
You gave me samples of insane sects and insane laws. Yet, you still failed to give me proof that legalization of gay marriage will harm our nation.
Sorry, but I still cannot see anything wrong with it
I'm a conservative. I don't like to rush things. I'd rather keep the old ways the way they are for as long as possible. At least until I die. After that, you people can do whatever you want. ;)
They are dedicated to some crazy shit. They're not even following the Qua-ran anymore, and I don't like liars and hypocrites.
I was anti-communist before this perestroika stuff, and now...I see our "democrats" have betrayed everything we stood for. And the West has largely betrayed us, too, by betraying itself.
So you're saying that you were an anti-communist before it was cool to be an anti-communist. You must really hate hipsters jumping on the band wagon after the fact ;)
Well, to tell the truth perestroika had already started, but the things I said and did were still quite dangerous. We were still a long way to go till formally acknowledging the evil of the Bolsheviks...and I think we're not there yet.
I couldn't understand these things earlier, because I was too young.
Anyway, the funny thing is, the same KGB which could take me in for what I was saying, was at that same time pestering the "democrats to be": Gaidar, Chubais, and others.
They had masterminded all this "democratic revolution", as a way of coming to power. Real power, not what is seen on display. The people from the former KGB fifth department are still the people behind the curtain in Russia, be it that the current president is one of them.
At the moment I can not think of an argument against homosexual incest other than I think it is wrong, which is the same argument that I get mad at others for using.
Maybe you can say that currently society is so against the concept of gay incest that it would put a lot of pressure on the incetous gay couple to the point where they break up and one of them, if not both of them, will end up all butt hurt ;)
Other than the birth defects, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I mean, I don't think incestuous marriage has a chance in the western world at the moment because of the current morals of western civilization. Maybe in Canada? I don't know. I see little problem with it than any other relationship.
If there is a law against incest, legalizing would remove one law. This is like how allowing homosexual marriage is removing laws against it, lowing the total number of laws. If that's what you are getting at I agree.
I think that in countries / states where incest is a criminal offense, those laws should be removed. While I don't like the "consenting adults" logic, I still think that consenting adults should not be punished for what they do, if they're not directly hurting others.
What I do not agree with, is legalization of incestuous marriage. Like with gay marriage, this will require creating more laws, and further redefining the term "marriage". But it's not the total number of laws that bother me. The problem is, in countries where law is precedent - based, LGBT has been able to make use of that, and with every new legislation, they create a bridgehead for pushing their agenda further.
Right now, they have been able to implement some more insane law changes, basing their logic on the fact that gay marriage is legal. They are pushing for even more gay propaganda in schools. They have forced redefinition oh hate speech, so it encompasses any kind of speech, that some gay may find offending. They have been able to push forward with the toilet law, which allows boys to go into girls' restrooms, and vice versa.
Those were just some examples, you can see more in my arguments on both sides of the debate.
All in all, these marginal movements are not harmless, and they actually push for adopting more insane laws, which limit the freedom of individuals.
Creating one more legal precedent for them, is in my opinion a very bad thing.
Like with gay marriage, this will require creating more laws, and further redefining the term "marriage"
Legalizing gay marriage doesn't create any new laws, it only removes previous restrictions. If you want marriage to be something supported by the government, it can't be discriminatory. You can have the word, I would rather all "marriage" be called civil unions and be done with it, if gays want to say their are married they can just as much as I can say I'm an astronaut, although based on the way society is embracing homosexuality, I have little doubt that marriage is going to be redefined by the people to include homosexuals.
My friend with Lupus has an extremely high chance of giving birth to someone with Lupus, same with my friend with sickle cell anaemia. I know a woman with aids and I have a hitory of asthma. Should all of us be barred from having children because our children will be physically impaired?
Good argument, but the ones who would commit incest have other options when it comes to having a child. The ones who actually have disease already just have to try and hope for the best.
But that is not fair, the argument is not in reference to procreation, it questions when and where the government should intervene in my sexual relations. What if I have a deep love for my sister or first cousin? Should the government stop me from choosing who to love? Gays cannot have children so they do not really add to the workforce or human resources as heterosexuals do- but they can adopt. Why can I not do the same?
I am confused now. Are you arguing for homosexuals or Incest? I don't understand how you even compare the two.
That is self explanatory, the argument on the side of gays is that love is love. So if love is love, then my love should not be discriminated against because of who I love.
deep love? you mean you just want to get sexual with them
That is the idea of incest.
The government isn't stopping you from loving them, they are just stopping you from publicly showing your love.
That is not only a bigoted statement, it is also the same argument conservative Christians use against gays- forcing them to stay in the closet.
Why not legalize that too? I mean, you can kill, maim, skin, genetically augment and alter animals, even put fruit flies through needless radiation and mutate them, making their short lives miserable. Why can't we have sex with them now?
That is not my responsibility, that is yours. These laws are in place because of a traditional moral construct. I am sure the Roman Empire functioned with bestiality, even though it was somewhat socially unacceptable.
If all your reason for going against their love is the chances of deformed offspring, then you should also condemn people who owns defective genes.
Also, under this logic, you are saying that people get married simply to reproduce. When it is not. People get wed to solidify their love. And if they truly love each other, it goes without saying that they know the risk of their relationship
Forbid them to have children, but do not go against their love. Problem solved
You got your details wrong lol...I know what you are talking about though. and it's not a very high chance. No where near as high of a chance their is for the child to be defective.
Morality is a slip and slide situation so if you legalize porn the question is raised as to why prostitution is not legal. They are inherently the same- it is just that one is filmed which shows that one being illegal is a logical fallacy. Same with incest, if you legalize homosexuality, the other should be too because they are inherently the same.
Yes, yes I would prefer that. But this is two pronged: either tighten laws about sexual interactions or loosen them so they are unbiased. I would prefer the former, but since that is not going to happen, hooray for the latter.
So when the bible says that for a man to lay with another man is an abomination, you are not going to even aknowelage it. I am fine if you choose to disagree with it buy you got to admit that it is there.
But it is not my opinion. It is fact that it is in the bible. I disagree with it but that does not give either you or me the right to pretend that it does not exist.
The key to understanding Scripture is context, context, context. 1. That was property law. It was a big no no to treat a man like a woman which was property. 2. Say it with me: temple prostitution.
I never said I agree with it, only that it exists which you seem to believe that you can will away. And as for context, I will reference Leviticus chapter 18 verse 22. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is abomination". I think that is a pretty clear message.
2) I went to catholic private school up to six grade
3) I studied while Prepared for confirmation
4) I was an active member of my churches youth group though out my high school career.
5) it does not take a hardcore understanding of the bible to understand the passage I referenced. Do you have any other explanation other then the bible is calling homosexuality an abomination. I am not agreeing with it, but only an extremely ignorant person should try to pretend that it does not exist.
You do of course realize that the bible was put together by the catholic church right. And we study the same scripture, i rather I study the same scripture you claim to know.
The pope is a steward. He is not the final law, but his word still holds influence. The first pope, Jesus' disciple Peter. That happened when Jesus called Peter the rock that he would build the foundation of his church on.
And side note, this still has no connection to what we were talking about previously. Are you going to denie the book of Leviticus exists.
Now answer me, are you willing to remove books of the bible just because you do not like them personally, because that is what you seem to be doing with the book of Leviticus.
That is not what I am doing. You are taking them out of context. Unless you keep the entire Torah Law, you are a hypocrite to use them out of context. I am done with you, do not bother me again.
I don't agree with it, all I have been saying is that is what the bible says. I am fine with gay people. But the bible is not. You keep telling me that I am taking it out of context, but you have not given me any other context to put it in. I gave you the reference. Feel free to read the entire chapter and show me where I am wrong, but you and I both know I got it right the first time.
I can't get what you're saying...the laws themselves are usually unambiguous, at least they should be that way. The law that would legalize incestuous marriage, would do just that. Same thing as with gay marriage.
However, the consequences of adopting such laws can be quite disgusting, in countries where law is precedent - based.
Legalization of gay marriage was not actually about marriage, only a small percent of gays have got married, in places where it had become legal. Its main purpose was to create a legal precedent, and then build the LGBT law-bending agenda on this precedent.
They are already pushing for even more gay propaganda in schools.
After all, if gays are even allowed to marry, they must be the "norm", e.t.c.
Nope I don't like inbreds. Inbreds are subject to bullying for there appearance. However cousin incest have a much lower chance than Sister or brother incest.