The Instigator
FollowerofChrist1955
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FaustianJustice
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

How is being Gay any different from Beastiality or Pedophilia? How is it not harmful?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
FaustianJustice
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,951 times Debate No: 93197
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (99)
Votes (4)

 

FollowerofChrist1955

Pro

I know that the heart wants what the heart wants! But not all things are good, solely because the heart wants them! THINK for a moment, set aside prejudice and consider with me the plight of the pedophiles and beastiality people who also wish to fulfill their sexual desires, like you. Who just want what the heart wants .... BOTH of them, sexual urges they wish to fulfill that are just as inappropriate as yours, and simply not what a civilized society NEEDS!

What you may call disgusting, they call a lifestyle, They like you remain in the closet. Do you not know this feeling? Isn't that precisely what you used to do? What difference is there? Really, What? Your only being prejudiced because YOU have NO SUCH FEELINGS, are they're feelings NOT also based on sexual desires? urges? .... What if you DID? would you brush it off so quickly?

These people Like those who delve into gay feelings and thoughts, ponder those feelings too, they ignore them at first but as the desire builds, urges are quite strong, everyone knows that. The first time is accompanied by fear, apprehension extreme nervousness, but once done, that guilt? Quickly evaporates, becoming desensitized, it becomes less troublesome to engage it. Perversion is Born.

All I'm saying is that the other two society abhor at present are just as valid as gays point of views, theirs however is STILL illegal isn't it .... JUST like yours was not too long ago? Now what ... shall we as a society also loosen our moral laws to include them? And if so, When do our MORALS simply CEASE to exist? And we become lead by the animal in us all? Have you reflected on this?

Ahh yes the point of it's not harmful to society .... Really? Have you no Television, no internet, can you not see the thousands of babies now questioning what sexual IDENTITY they associate with? WAS THAT a problem 5 years ago ... 10 years ago. Babies, now questioning IF they were BORN correctly? Don't tell me your lifestyle isn't harming anyone! Open your eyes and see what it's doing to the Nations children ... you have everything to do with this!

The point is valid and you know it is! IF not, why not? I'm listening. Show me your side is any different than those of them who engage in pedophilia or beastiality, or multiple wives or husbands all are based solely on sexual urges alone ... not love? Even heterosexual men seek women based on their desire to have sex, love doesn't even come into play till they have BEEN together for a time so spare us the lies of it's love! We're all Adults I think, we all know the truth, or do we?

If you disagree tell me WHY you disagree, I bet their based solely on the fact that you don't feel those urges,and nothing else! Don't use the law cause sodomy was also against the law, that it is not now is not the point is it?

We all want the right to freely engage in sex when ever we want, and now we have disease aids, death ... tell me, we DO have that rights now BUT WAS IT GOOD? Or did we just create a monster, by loosening morals, now children out of wedlock, orphaned children, deadbeat dads, by the millions, welfare in massive levels. Still think it does no harm?

Would it NOT have been far better to NOT have loosened our morals ... stood for our common ground!

I have said Nothing of religion, because at this point it isn't the question at all cause we all already KNOW what religion says about it so it's a mute point! I want to know from a totally secular non-Religious standpoint how it is less harmful, than the other two, How it CAME ABOUT any differently than gays, How it was based on Love and NOT sexual urges alone ... like you all CLAIM? Really what IS different about it? All three are driven by sexual urge, all three are unnatural, all three remained in the closet, all three were abhored by society till just recently. Let us reason you and I not as believer and nonbeliever, but as two adults concerned with our society. And what its becoming!

IF we're gonna talk freedom, lets TALK FREEDOM, tell me why the other two MUST BE EXCLUDED and not yours? WHERE is the real difference not YOUR difference, the real difference. How would the OTHERS ruin society any more than yours has done to date to our children?

Do they not ALSO deserve freedom? They would tell you they love also? The point has always been what is GOOD for society .... the unnatural is never good for the society .... because what is unnatural is completely in the eye of the beholder .... and as such, compromise cannot be done without infringement on someone elses rights under the law.

This is why it was bad .... because it very directly discriminates against others who have equal claim as you? They would not think their's is harmful either .... but we BOTH know it would be!

Where do we draw the line. Polygamy? whats wrong with polygamy? Whats wrong with that lady wanting to have a sexual relationship with her tree? Why is that any less natural than what you pander? Who has rights, who should be left out? The fact is that all people have rights, but the acquiesce to human kind based on sexual urges is, has and will always be wrong!

It is best to require society to exercise self restraint and control. What you do in the privacy of your home was your business .... YOU brought it to the public view, and now you want your rights, you want your rights .... well so do they? But you equally and just as quickly deny those same rights to others with equal claim a legal right to sexually satisfy THEIR urges, that IS wrong, just as YOURS was wrong! Don't believe that? Tell me WHY?

http://www.nhs.uk...

If a child seems confused about their gender, it's normal for parents to feel puzzled or worried.

https://www.healthychildren.org...

http://creation.com...

Gender confusion identity crisis is a very complex issue.

http://abcnews.go.com...

Buying Time for Gender-Confused Kids

http://www.cbc.ca...

http://www.nbcdfw.com...

FWISD Bathroom Debate Could Put Billions in Funding at Risk

http://www.mystatesman.com...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Oops! North Carolina's Anti-LGBT Law Also Hurts Veterans

Don't tell me it's not harmful?

FaustianJustice

Con



The resolution at hand posits questions to a preferred end. In the mean time, no evidence was presented to such, only a series of seemingly still more rhetorical questions.

Lets start with the obvious:

How is being gay different than being a pedophile, or zoophile? Unless corrected by Pro, I will assume "Gay" to mean sexually attracted to members of the same gender, typically in age ranges above sexual maturity. I am assuming pedophile to be an individual sexually attracted to children, and zoophile sexually attracted to animals.

As a general occurrence, pedophilia is practiced as an act of opportunity. If Pro is interested, evidence to the idea of whom most victims are assaulted by regarding pedophiles can be offered, but its a truly morbid topic, and Con is not certain the conditions are as important as the reasoning. The pedophile assumes a position in the child's life in which some variety of authority can be exercised to encourage silence in the other party, as well as gain their trust. In addition, due the the immature nature of a child's mind, they are not able to give an informed consent to the pedophile. These 2 factors make the nature of the relationship predatory. As to what makes such an abhorrent practice to others is the bizarre nature of the affection: youth. Youth by virtue of biology doesn't reflect any sexual traits, however inspires sexual thoughts in the pedophile. Contrast this to a typical homosexual relationship (and hetero one, for that matter) in which 2 adults, typically past the age of consent, are drawn to each other for various factors, the most obvious of which sexual maturity. Its no secret men and women of each gender are drawn to the hallmarks of sexual maturity in a potential mate.

This is what makes pedophilia different from a homosexual relationship: rational attraction to sexual maturity, the ability to give an informed consent, and the inherent avoidance of abuse of authority as a means to predation.

With regards to zoophiles, the rationale is much the same. The target is not able to give any meaningful informed consent, the nature of the relationship typically is authoritarian, and the sexual attraction hinges from nothing involving what the zoophile could consider to be a hallmark of human sexual maturity; its unrelatable.


With those basic understandings in place, it now becomes a common application of accepted morality and reasoning to deduce what is immoral and what isn't, or what benefits society and what doesn't, etc. Pro doesn't have an immediate moral frame work to guide by, however Con is not desirous of picking nits, there seems to be an idea of it, and Con can follow that idea. Sort of.

In the wanderings of Pro's opening argument, there is also allusions to polygamy, and what's wrong with that, to which Con can't find anything "wrong" with it provided all parties involved are there of their own accord, and also what is wrong with a lady wanting to have a sexual relationship with her tree, prompting con to question what makes for a sexual "relationship", as clearly the tree would have no involvement in the relationship beyond existence.

With regards to the cited links, Con will openly admit, they weren't read as I am not certain what tie in to the various questions (or the resolution as presented) would be, and prefer not to put words in Pro's mouth.

In the interest of "coming across the aisle" on this matter, it should be noted that what we, as a society are currently seeing that is being relayed by Pro as a crisis of morals, is the backlash of hundreds of years of marginalization. Entertain the term "being in the closet" for a moment. Why would some one need to be in it? Why should some one have to hide who they are? Since Pro doesn't charge that homosexuality is a choice, clearly, such an attraction exists to varying degrees in the population. There is no conceivable reason for which to isolate and ostracize some one for that which can be healthily expressed with a compatible partner. Rather than allow and explain this to our children, we have called such an anomaly in the sexual world to be "perverse", stigmatized it, and proceeded to attach all manner of unflattering names in the efforts to shame those people whom had no agency over whom they were drawn too.

From here, I will return things back to Pro, hopefully to see exactly where this discussion might go, how it applies to a resolution, and what exactly makes homosexuality in of itself such a demon in the eyes of Pro, and those whom might share the same view.
Debate Round No. 1
FollowerofChrist1955

Pro

Cons opening is well put, its definitions clear and to the point. The definitions however albeit accurate are also posited in a more vague or deceptively described as to suggest an actual difference in application, where none exists?

Put bluntly or more succinctly without attempt to decorate or paint in differing lights they are defined as such:

Homosexuality- Sexual attraction (desire or urges) to engage in sex with persons of the same sex

Pedophilia- Sexual attraction (desire or urges) to engage in sex with persons under a prescribed age group

Beastiality-sexual attraction (desire or urges) to engage in sex with non-human animals

Now this elicits a more pronounced feeling or idea of the subject matter, rather than the artfully painted version. It is for this cause one must reason from a position of rationality rather than one of ornate descriptors. As Con has so artfully demonstrated you can attempt to turn a pig into a poodle by the application of a pink bow, but the pig in actuality remains a pig!

The more accurate descriptors are:

Attraction: the action or power of evoking interest, pleasure, or liking for someone or something:

Sexual: relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals:

Desire: a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen:

wanton.: deliberate and unprovoked: sexually immodest or promiscuous. play; frolic. behave in a sexually immodest or promiscuous way.

Immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality:

Promiscuity: the fact or state of being promiscuous:

Synonyms: licentiousness, wantonness, immorality ·

All of these covered under a single statement:

The heart wants what the heart wants! But not all things are good, solely because the heart wants them!

This statement when viewed as a question elicits the prescribed thought ….. a WANT? Not a need, a DESIRE, not a need, and URGE not a need.

Evidence? This is all the evidences required, they too are well defined available in any dictionary, Con paints you a bouquet, where I am just point too the flowers, showing each for what it is, not as con presents a neatly arranged presentation.

Lets start with the obvious:

As a general occurrence, pedophilia/beastiality/homosexuality is practiced as an act of opportunity. This is undisputable!

Consent does not indemnify the action! It merely spreads the guilt, prisons are full of people who had consensual sex with minors. (immoral is immoral) Children once married at 15, now you go to prison! Legality is not in question because as demonstrated the laws change? This does not signify nor constitute the change as Good or Moral ….. merely accepted.

Con: As to what makes such an abhorrent practice to others is the bizarre nature of the affection: youth.

Abhorrance is in the eyes of the beholder … as news articles indicate many citizenry find homosexuality abhorrent and are being FORCED to capitulate to them …. This is a fundamental assault on freedom. Evidence of a Government gone wrong.

Con: Youth by virtue of biology doesn't reflect any sexual traits, however inspires sexual thoughts in the pedophile.

Again attempts to position a side painting a picture with words, rather than pointing at the flower, it is an arranged statement, but no more true than the other statements.

Con: Contrast this to a typical homosexual relationship (and hetero one, for that matter) in which 2 adults, typically past the age of consent, are drawn to each other for various factors, the most obvious of which sexual maturity.

**Notice the artful positioning of words …. Introducing the natural to somehow highlight the acceptability of the unnatural act? Clever, yes but flawed in the extreme. Sex out of wedlock is not a moral act, for generations. Unnatural acts remain unnatural and not subject to society acceptance as evidence of moral actions.

The point: Societies acceptance DOES NOT CONSTITUTE MORAL ACTIONS, simply accepted practice.

Promiscuity has always and will always be defined by the general heading of immoral, by the elders of society as a group, that the elders no longer hold a position of respect is simply an injunction on the flagrancy (of bad behavior) done openly and unashamedly) of Society as a whole.

Con: Its no secret men and women of each gender are drawn to the hallmarks of sexual maturity in a potential mate.

This suggest promiscuity not morality.

Con: With those basic understandings in place, it now becomes a common application of accepted morality and reasoning to deduce what is immoral and what isn't, or what benefits society and what doesn't, etc.

Is this not obvious …. Society does not define morality or immorality- BEHAVIOR and CONDUCT does. It’s not rocket science.

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality, virtue, goodness, good behavior, righteousness, rectitude, uprightness, morals, principles, honesty, integrity, propriety, honor, justice, decency, ethics

Immoral: the state or quality of being immoral; wickedness,vileness, corruption, dishonesty, dishonorableness, sinfulness, ungodliness, unchastity, sin, depravity, villainy, vice, degeneracy, debauchery, dissolution, perversion, lewdness, obscenity, wantonness, promiscuity, shadiness, crookedness, turpitude

Homosexuality, lesbianism are squarely in the immoral catagory along with pedophilia and beastiality-Pigs with a Bow.

Con:there is also allusions to polygamy, and what's wrong with that, to which Con can't find anything "wrong" with it provided all parties involved are there of their own accord, and also what is wrong with a lady wanting to have a sexual relationship with her tree, prompting con to question what makes for a sexual "relationship", as clearly the tree would have no involvement in the relationship beyond existence.

Con’s above statement has been made more succinct

Con finds nothing wrong with multiple wives, or having sex with trees …. Essentially, this is what we are left with people who see no wrong in virtually anything. That is why this debate is here … society has become a danger to itself with people making decisions in government without reflection or thought as to consequences.

Con: With regards to the cited links, Con will openly admit, they weren't read as I am not certain what tie in to the various questions (or the resolution as presented) would be, and prefer not to put words in Pro's mouth.

Had con READ the attached he would have seen the impact of sexual abandon places upon society as a whole. Children now questioning if they were born right… oh they have the right genitalia, their just “NOT SURE” if God got it right? And science? They are on the fast track to trying to infer these confused individual’s despite them having the correct body parts are correct in their assumptions because of some Feeling or thought (as if your Brain has anything to do with your genitalia).

Con: In the interest of "coming across the aisle" on this matter, it should be noted that what we, as a society are currently seeing that is being relayed by Pro as a crisis of morals, is the backlash of hundreds of years of marginalization.

Now released into full blown immoral conduct. Death of marriage, promiscuity at every level, from childhood to adulthood, as evidenced by the schools handing out condoms …. With the thought they’re going to do it anyway, relieving the parents of responsibility, and of being mature parents.

Entertain the term "being in the closet" for a moment. Why would some one need to be in it?

Why should some one have to hide who they are?

Simply stated: For the benefit of mankind!, to hold back immorality, which appears to no longer exist in the young. How sad.

The nonsense of homosexuality of being anything other than a choice is lunacy. If this is so lets hospitalize them like the other mentally compromised not give in to their animal instincts. Wanton behavior is wanton, whether you believe it or not!

reposted for con to READ!

http://www.nhs.uk...

If a child seems confused about their gender, it's normal for parents to feel puzzled or worried.

https://www.healthychildren.org...

http://creation.com...

Gender confusion identity crisis is a very complex issue.

http://abcnews.go.com...

Buying Time for Gender-Confused Kids

http://www.cbc.ca...

http://www.nbcdfw.com...

FWISD Bathroom Debate Could Put Billions in Funding at Risk

http://www.mystatesman.com...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Oops! North Carolina's Anti-LGBT Law Also Hurts Veterans

Don't tell me it's not harmful?

FaustianJustice

Con

"As a general occurrence, pedophilia/beastiality/homosexuality is practiced as an act of opportunity. This is undisputable!" -- Perhaps con should clarify, pedophilia acted upon as a one off event, or a secretly cultured one. Con feels they were most clear on this, however as to how Pro can claim homosexuality to be an opportunity any more or less than heterosexuality is baffling. The exact nature of how a zoophile works I will leave to Pro to discuss, Con has been unable to find methodology due to rarity of volunteers for observation.

"Consent does not indemnify the action! It merely spreads the guilt, prisons are full of people who had consensual sex with minors. (immoral is immoral) Children once married at 15, now you go to prison! Legality is not in question because as demonstrated the laws change? This does not signify nor constitute the change as Good or Moral ….. merely accepted." ---

Consent does indemnify the action assuming all parties are able to given an informed consent. Such is not the case with pedophilia. If Pro would be so kind as to provide an age range as to what they feel "pedo" philia constitutes, Con would be appreciative, as 15 year olds, physically, tend to draw attention based on sexual maturity, not youth (or being a child) as the more accurate definition (Con provided) of the word suggests. Per the definition provided by Con, "a prescribed age group" could mean any arbitrary number, hence why Con draws the line at pre and post sexual maturation. As children are not able to provide informed consent, it makes the act immoral, rape, essentially.

Con goes on: "Abhorrance is in the eyes of the beholder … as news articles indicate many citizenry find homosexuality abhorrent and are being FORCED to capitulate to them …. This is a fundamental assault on freedom. Evidence of a Government gone wrong." --- Capitulate to what? The existene of a concept? Remember, Pro defines terms as an urge, not specifically an action. As to how anyone is forced to capitulate to a concept of some one else's unacted upon desire is absurd. Further more, the line in the sand was clearly drawn, and is obviously not in the eye of the beholder. Your typical homosexual (and hetero) relationships are derived from the informed consent of a sexually mature partner. Pedophilia is not. Assuming Pro would like to alter their definition to include action, Con is again forced to wonder what exactly is being 'capitulated' to.

"The heart wants what the heart wants! But not all things are good, solely because the heart wants them! This statement when viewed as a question elicits the prescribed thought ….. a WANT? Not a need, a DESIRE, not a need, and URGE not a need." -- Con is not good with metaphors. If the heart wants a tall glass of water, is this some kind of desire and urge, and cannot be a need? This heart wanting what it wants thing seems to be a poor standard for finding what Pro calls immorality. This is to be a common theme through Pro's argumentation: appeals to emotion.

"Con: Youth by virtue of biology doesn't reflect any sexual traits, however inspires sexual thoughts in the pedophile" .Again attempts to position a side painting a picture with words, rather than pointing at the flower, it is an arranged statement, but no more true than the other statements.

Con doesn't see a refute of any variety here.

"Con: Contrast this to a typical homosexual relationship (and hetero one, for that matter) in which 2 adults, typically past the age of consent, are drawn to each other for various factors, the most obvious of which sexual maturity." **Notice the artful positioning of words …. Introducing the natural to somehow highlight the acceptability of the unnatural act? Clever, yes but flawed in the extreme. Sex out of wedlock is not a moral act, for generations. Unnatural acts remain unnatural and not subject to society acceptance as evidence of moral actions.

Were Con to examine this rebuttal, Pro is claiming that which is unnatural is immoral. This is an appeal to nature, fallacious at its core, and secondly, homosexual tendencies and urges are found in nature, frequently. Pro then decides to introduce concepts such as wedlock to the equation, as thoough homosexuals are unable to engage in a marriage contract. This rebuttal, bluntly, fails.

"Con: Its no secret men and women of each gender are drawn to the hallmarks of sexual maturity in a potential mate." --This suggest promiscuity not morality." -- No, this suggests neither, its a basic statement of fact. Again, if Pro would like links to the nature of sexuality (homo and hetero) I will provide, however it seems pretty axiomatic.

"Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality, virtue, goodness, good behavior, righteousness, rectitude, uprightness, morals, principles, honesty, integrity, propriety, honor, justice, decency, ethics

Immoral: the state or quality of being immoral; wickedness,vileness, corruption, dishonesty, dishonorableness, sinfulness, ungodliness, unchastity, sin, depravity, villainy, vice, degeneracy, debauchery, dissolution, perversion, lewdness, obscenity, wantonness, promiscuity, shadiness, crookedness, turpitude


Homosexuality, lesbianism are squarely in the immoral catagory along with pedophilia and beastiality-Pigs with a Bow."


-- Ipse dixit. Given that the definition provided by pro specifically refers to -desire and urge- and not -action- its quite possible for many of the above (immoral) qualities to be avoided, however the more promininet point: Pro is asserting such is immoral with no foundation to do so. It first started as "natural", I look forward to see what new standard Pro moves the goal post to. Con has also demonstrated the difference in moralities regarding for what constitutes predatory relationships and what doesn't. Were equality to be a benchmark for morality, which I am sure Pro can agree to, a predatory relationship is not an equal one.



"Con finds nothing wrong with multiple wives, or having sex with trees …. " --- Con doesn't see how one can have a relationship with a tree, be it sexual or otherwise, as first stated by Pro. It would be akin to stating one has a sexual relationship with their bath water or underwear.



And then let us board the slippery slope! "Essentially, this is what we are left with people who see no wrong in virtually anything. That is why this debate is here … society has become a danger to itself with people making decisions in government without reflection or thought as to consequences." -- Con in their first round demonstrated the immorality via predatory relationship regarding beastiality and pedophilia, so this particular claim falls flat.




"Had con READ the attached he would have seen the impact of sexual abandon places upon society as a whole. Children now questioning if they were born right… oh they have the right genitalia, ...." --- Con is not going to make arguments for Pro or infer arguments for pro. If Pro has specific points to make, they may do so at any time, though how it ties to the resolution shall be most interesting indeed.

"Con: In the interest of "coming across the aisle" on this matter, it should be noted that what we, as a society are currently seeing that is being relayed by Pro as a crisis of morals, is the backlash of hundreds of years of marginalization." Now released into full blown immoral conduct. --- Concession noted.

"Death of marriage,..." --- Given that now currently more groups of people are allowed to be married than previously, stating marriage is dying is hyperbole at best and a lie at worst.

"promiscuity at every level, from childhood to adulthood, as evidenced by the schools handing out condoms …." --- the drop in teen preganancy rates that corresponds with sex ed courses Con surmises is just a coincidence. And the states with the highest rate of teen pregnancies are abstience-only education/conservative ones. (2)(1)

"Simply stated: For the benefit of mankind!, to hold back immorality" -- ipse dixit, again. Pro would like to be an arbiter of morality, however is unable to plant a standard for what morality should be, or why. I eagerly await this standard.

"The nonsense of homosexuality of being anything other than a choice is lunacy." --- Pro is now being contradictory. Homosexuality as presented is inclusive of an urge, and urges by nature are not a choice. I eagerly away how this will be amnded, too.

Back to you, Pro.


Debate Round No. 2
FollowerofChrist1955

Pro


Legalism is absent in sexual gratification, homosexuality has been ongoing even when in violation of law. Therefore consent as excuse of legitimacy is false. As sex outside of wedlock is not illiegal but immoral under the heading of promiscuity.


Look people, Con is clearly bereft of decency and morals, so speaking to the walking dead is a pointless, matter. Therefore I shall speak solely to you. The purpose for the entire debate is to demonstrate to each of you that whether you believe it or not your being held accountable by God, and unless you seek Him with an open heart and Mind, you’re never going to get to meet Him till judgement Day and then it's too late. 2 Billion Believers HAVE had a come to Jesus meeting with God themselves personally, which is WHY they follow Him today. That is no myth, wishful thinking, imagination, or hoping. God not only is REAL He manifests Himself every single day in the Lives of millions of Believers every day!


Because He is real, so is heaven and so is Hell! Everyone engaging in sins of any kind are Hell bound for eternity for refusing to live 100% morally which is only possible by and through Him! The Spirit of God indwells every believer and gives them the ability to turn from a life of continuous sin …. It enables believers by His strength to say NO to sin, where you, cannot say no, you are born into sin because of Adams fall.


Listen I could sit here and respond to Con’s immoral opinions all day long and we would get nowhere. So How about I try to prove at least that the Biblical interpretation of Life on Earth is the only TRUE version. Can’t be done you say? Not True, you just need a open mind and a small amount of uncorrupted intelligence. Scientist can’t get past their ego’s, atheist and agnostics can’t either. But people who like me neither believed nor disbelieved ….. He stands ready to reveal Himself to, we need only honestly seek. Remember?


Matthew 7:7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.…


Let us begin with evidence …. A thing Con can never provides, only opinions. I will provide you with what no one else has provided you … irrefutable, evidence, of sciences falsehoods, yes, but more …. Of the proof that the Bible is the true word of God and that God does in fact exist today!


Human existence:


Archaeological study covers an extremely long span of time and a great variety of subjects. The earliest subjects of archaeological study date from the origins of humanity. These include fossil remains believed to be of human ancestors who lived 3.5 million to 4.5 million years ago.


http://history-world.org...


Herein lies the proof that the Bible is far more credible than science. That Science is and has been flawed by mans narrow reasoning ability, and inability to verify their findings in meaningful ways. If it sounds good to other scientists, they simply accept it as fact, never providing proofs of course, just the theories they used to come up with it.


Here is where YOUR intellect will clash with the (alleged experts of Science) People so trained in structure that they cannot see what’s in front of their noses.


As is shown above it is very much implied man existed 3.5 Million years ago. I’m in another debate called


http://www.debate.org...


He suggest that life existed 2.8 Million years ago, but was willing to imply that Human existence has been on Earth for at least 30,000 years. That is a far cry from 3.5 Million, but for calculation purposes it is also easier to calculate from So just using His much smaller numbers, lets check the mathematical probabilities;


According to archeological evidence and Darwin's theory of evolution humans inhabited the planet Earth long before the Old Testament was written. "Instead, hominid evolution produced a dense thicket of branches, with several species co-existing at any given time except for the last 30,000 years or so" [2]


humans have existed for at least 30,000 years.


EVIDENCE FACT: In 1790 United States Census began and the population of just the United States was 3,929,214 Presently the total Human population of the United States is 323,928,727 Souls.


This means in 227 years of life on Earth that number has grown to 82.4411007 times that number, stay with me now folks. Taking just the United States numbers as counted in 1790 3,929,214 Souls and allowing it to only increase by itself each 227 years (it has in real time doubled itself 82.4 times in the 227 !


Lets do the math.


30,000 years divided by 227 years= 132.15859


3,929,214 multiplied by 132=518,656,248 Million Souls upon the earth in 30,000 years not 3,929,214 by 1790


Now if we Subtract the total population in 1790 from the total that leaves 514,727,034 Million souls who were missing IN 1790 .... where did the go? All those people just vanished leaving not a trace, no bones, nothing, ziltch, nada, which should be all over the place Millions of human bones .... but we find bones here and there, every blue moon we find one that is WOW 400,000 years old than according to archeology.


Stop and think? Imagine calculating that 1790 population not by 132, but by the preposterous number archeologist want you to accept... 3.5 Million divided by 227=15418.5022


3,929,214 X 15,418 ………………. Cmon! Impossible! That’s only using 1790’s population and only of the united States alone. It isn’t including other Humans, it doesn’t include animals of every type and king which would have also grown in that time frame, it doesn’t include, fowl, sea creatures,insects none of that!


that population would be ..... to much population for the Earth to hold even today!


So what do you think Folks? Has life existed on Earth 3.5 Million years? 400,000 years? 30,000 years? or might archeology really be in need of using a different way of calculating time? Is that in anyway mathematically feasible?


Humanly possible?


Biblically we've been here almost 7000 years and we started life with 2 people, 7000 years ago ending up with 3,929,214 souls by 1790. Now I ask you which one is even remotely logical, possible, plausible.



So enough of that nonsense. You see people; we have to think clearer than that. We can no longer just accept sciences theories without facts, they Lie far too much they produce a million reports but when you follow them to the end you come up with the same conclusions.... No evidence, they were and are just guessing, if it sounds good to them it’s a fact, and that's just wrong.


More over if there IS a God, and there is. Then people are being lead down the primrose path only to find themselves in Hell at the end of life's journey and why? Cause they trusted human beings who are fallible, and not unproven to lies.


So the Bible is real, it is the word of God, make all the excuses you want to continue in your present harmful lifestyle, and like every other unrepentant sinner you are willfully choosing The world, the Flesh and the Devil. I have fulfilled my requirement before God. I have warned you of the consequence of living unrepentant sinful lives, and pointed out the consequences of Hell. I’ve looked for descriptors of Hell, and the Catholics come closest I think to Hells description:


As a side note notice how long it says Hell has been there? Just sayin.


Fire


Now look into hell and see what she saw. Look at the floor of hell. It is red hot like red hot iron. Streams of burning pitch and sulfur run through it. Is. The floor blazes up to the roof. Look at the walls, the enormous stones are red hot; sparks of fire are always falling down from them. Lift up your eyes to the roof of hell; it is like a sheet of blazing fire. Sometimes when you get up on a winter's morning, you see the country filled with a great thick fog. Hell is filled with a fog of fire. In some parts of the world torrents of rain come down which sweep away trees and houses. In hell, torrents, not of rain, but of fire and brimstone, are rained down. "The Lord shall rain down on sinners fire and brimstone." Storms of hail stones come down on the earth and break the windows in pieces. But in hell the hail stones are thunder bolts, red hot balls of fire. God shall send thunder bolts against him. See that great whirlwind of fire sweeping across hell.



VIII. Smoke


The smoke of their torments shall go up forever and ever. Stop up the chimney where the fire is burning. In half an hour the room will be full of smoke, so that you cannot stay there. The great fires of hell have been smoking now for nearly six thousand years. They will go on smoking forever. There is no chimney to take this smoke off; there is no wind to blow it away. See those great black, heavy sulphurous clouds rising up every moment from the dark fires. They rise up till the roof of hell stops them. The roof drives them back again. Slowly they go down into the abyss of hell. There they are joined by more dark clouds of smoke leaving the fires. So hell is filled with sulfur and smoke, in which no one on earth could breathe or live. How then do they live in hell? In hell they must live, but they are stifled and choked each moment, as if they were dying. Now listen!


No matter where the debate goes from Here? You've been well informed, as Con is so found of saying ... to CONSENT? Well that's up to you ain't it?


FaustianJustice

Con

"Legalism is absent in sexual gratification" --- this is obviously untrue as its possible to legally partake of actions which sexually gratify oneself.

"homosexuality has been ongoing even when in violation of law." --- as has heterosexuality, so this is a moot point.

"Therefore consent as excuse of legitimacy is false." -- given the 2 previous assertions have been demonstrated as either false or moot, its suffice to say this conclusion is an irrational one.

And, from here.... Pro has parted ways with the debate, and seems to have abandon the resolution.

Should Pro return, I will be happy to re-engage.

To remind the reader: Homosexuality being different from Beastiality or Pedophila was the pretense for this discussion. I have outline the differences, and why there is legitimacy in homosexuality, but not pedophilia or beastiality.
Debate Round No. 3
FollowerofChrist1955

Pro

"Legalism is absent in sexual gratification" - AS acts are performed in private. none but those partiipating are involved.
as heterosexuality, it has never been illegal in this country, except in Colorado.

As previously stated evidences, have been provided that gives credence that you in point of fact are being held accountable for your actions. The opponent continues to proveed from a defunc moral standpoint andyou are allowed to follow his leading to its inevitable conclusions. The point is for those who worked the problem withing yourselves, any immoral lifestyle be it promiscuity irrespective of gender types gets you to the same place, it is worthy to mentin that as near as I have een able to ascertain there are three distinct levels of Hell each preceeding one worse than the one above it.

My thoughts are the worse you are the harsher shall be your judgement. Really as those who have blinded themselves to the extent that all moral character has been overthrown as demonstrated by my opponent, it is failly easy to surmise the final destination of such souls, It is up to you to believe to live a life bereftof morals, that however is your choice and consequence.

Sexual Urges are no different from one another, sexual perversions are equally no different. No matter how many bows you put on it.
FaustianJustice

Con

In this particular round, it would seem as though Pro made a beleagured attempt to return to topic, though it remains to be seen if the attempt is worth while. The first assertions regarding none but those participating are involved seems pretty axiomatic, but as to how that ties back to a legalism stand point is befuddling, and just as crypitc, that heterosexuality was at one time (or still is?) illegal in Colorado.

Now, Pro has moved on to accuse the contrary position as having a defunct moral standard, however since Con's position thus far has been to demsonstrate the most obvious and immediate differences in pedophilia, beastiality, and homosexuality, along with what is morally incongruent amongst the lot, it is a bit disturbing that Pro levels the accusation that the contrary position is bankrupt concerning morality, as the bench mark for said morality was consent, and the demonstration that 2 of the relationship are predatory by way of the inability to voice an informed consent. Con is arguing for the participants to be on equal footing in the relationship as a moral guide. I leave it up to our readers and voters to determine if that is morally bankrupt or not.

The icing on this proverbial cake is the accusatory nature Pro takes while contradicting themselves, or at the very least, exposing their system of morality in such a way that is unflattering. To wit:

"Sexual Urges are no different from one another, sexual perversions are equally no different. No matter how many bows you put on it."

With regards to sexual perversion, this essentially means (as collected from this statement and the previous arguments) that to Pro, pedophilia ranks as immorally as heterosexual rape, as immorally as sex out of wedlock, as immorally as consenual intercourse among homosexuals... couple that with homosexuality being a choice, but all sexual urges are 'no different from one another' meaning heterosexuality is a choice, too, and that urge some how is a choice... this leaves Con wondering exactly what Pro considers to be choice, urge, and why relationships borne of equal standing between its participants are of the same immorality as ones that are predatory in nature.

I am sure Pro can clear this up in the final round.
Debate Round No. 4
FollowerofChrist1955

Pro

Again the bereft morals and lack of understanding are self evident in Cons argument:
To even suggest that consent is the definer of morals is as ignorant as it is preposterous. Morals exist. As do a complete lack of them as demonstrated by con's lifestyle. That is neiter here nor There.

Con would have you believe that sexual desire is exactly the same between heterosexual and Homosexual, but dilibrately attempts to exclude pedophilia and beastiality from the group. This of course is @ssine as it is futile as all sexual urges are equivalent to each other, across the board. It is therefore futile to attempt to exclude one sexual urge from another as all have the same end , which is self gratification, legal or not. It is Here that morality is either applied or cast aside.

When the choice is to abstain- the choice toward morality is evident.
when the choice is to engage the graification of the flesh- morals have been cast aside.

Make no mistake morals can be violated even by those in marriage. Ahh yes but God doesn't exist, goes the saying. You haven't really sought Him, but it nonetheless is your stance.

I have shown the evidence by mathmatics which has shown the absurdity of Science archeology. This easily demonstrates they impossibilities of the REAL existence of life on earth, and at the very least calls into question the validity of Archeological timeframes. If correct and I am correct, then it suggest that the Biblical text is also correct it its defintion of lifes exitence.

Con wishes for you to continue in your sinful existence to join Him in the risk of spending eternity in torment and suffering, that is of course your choice. I assure you and have given mathmatical evidence while con gives you opinion after opinion. Your choice is yours to make. You have the information before you, weight Them, reflect upon them, and choose the way you shall go. Your choice effects neither Con nor myself ... but of the two of us It is my ascertion that only one of us has shown concern for YOUR welbeing, your Soul .... the part of you you Call you? It exists forever ..... the WHERE is the only concern.
FaustianJustice

Con

"To even suggest that consent is the definer of morals is as ignorant as it is preposterous. Morals exist. As do a complete lack of them as demonstrated by con's lifestyle. That is neiter here nor There." --- And this is the problem with having a nebulous argument to begin with. The difference in the relationships was explained, then morality seems to slip into the argument, of which the moral differences was explained, however that is not apparently "moral" enough. This classic case of moving the goal posts is where Pro would like to leave you as a final thought.


"Con would have you believe that sexual desire is exactly the same between heterosexual and Homosexual" ---

Well, a heterosexual and a homosexual can feel urges to a female or a male, so, and it is devoted to the sexual traits inherent to a mature human. That seems to be axiomatic, and I am surprised Pro waited so late to insinuate a difference, and then not explain the differences.

"but dilibrately attempts to exclude pedophilia and beastiality from the group. " --- because the urges here are not slacked with a sexually mature human, nor are said urges inspired by a sexually mature human. Again, this seems axiomatic, and pointless to assert so late in the debate with no explanation to Pro's position.


"This of course is @ssine as it is futile as all sexual urges are equivalent to each other, across the board." -- a sexual urge is a sexual urge, Con doesn't see how this bolsters Pro's position or detracts from Con's.

"It is therefore futile to attempt to exclude one sexual urge from another as all have the same end , which is self gratification, legal or not. It is Here that morality is either applied or cast aside." --- So then why didn't Pro include heterosexuality in their resolution? The answer is obvious: special exception will be made within the constructs of a preferred morality that is never explained. As suggested, the moral guide Con preferred regarding consent is common sense, easily understood, and while disagreed with by Pro, never actually refuted.

From there, Pro abandons the debate again, and dedicates their conclusion to religion, a place highlighted in their opening round: "I have said Nothing of religion, because at this point it isn't the question at all cause we all already KNOW what religion says about it so it's a mute point! I want to know from a totally secular non-Religious standpoint how it is less harmful, than the other two..." --- what is not being said is that Pro wants to refer to their preferred religion, and not explain why its (homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia) immoral beyond deific fiat. The "less harm" has been demonstrated: the relationship of 2 of the mentioned sexual realms are predatory in nature, it cannot be avoided. As Pro seems to have no problem identifying what else harms a society, it should be settled as to how a predatory nature harms society, yet... pro persists.

In the interest of not spending any more of our readers/judges time, and seeing no actual refute of the suggestions Con put forward, this resolution should be considered Resolved. I urge the reading audience to vote Con in light of unrefuted demonstration, contradictory and unfounded assertions by Pro, and for (in Con's opinion) forming this debate with dishonest pretenses to do no more than proselytize.
Debate Round No. 5
99 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FaustianJustice 4 months ago
FaustianJustice
WFTL, I would suggest shooting me a PM so I can dispense with finding a way to leave messages for you.
Posted by WFTL 4 months ago
WFTL
The LGBTQ is in the midst of a transformation, in which they will be including pedophilias and beastiality to there group of abomination, so look for the new sign to look as follows, LGBTQPB.
Posted by FaustianJustice 7 months ago
FaustianJustice
FoC 1955, shoot me a message, please. I would like to ask a few questions about round structure.
Posted by FaustianJustice 7 months ago
FaustianJustice
I'm game for this debate.
Posted by canis 7 months ago
canis
He is only speaks about something that is going on in his imagination. Normaly it is called dreaming..
Posted by evanjfarrar 7 months ago
evanjfarrar
What is their ignorance that you do not share? Now you have stopped replying to me; I can only assume you are unable to respond.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 7 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
BrendanD19;
Like canis your so far lost mentally that you would not see truth if it bit you. I've wasted enough time on your ignorance, procedd as you are you WILL understand in due time.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 7 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
canis ;
sigh .... you been immersed in lies your whole life that even the simplest truth is beyond your understanding. We will speak no more since your to lost to process truths of any kind.
Posted by BrendanD19 7 months ago
BrendanD19
Your response does not make any sense, logically or grammatically.
also you don't even respond to any of my arguments that I made.
Posted by shrimpcrackers 7 months ago
shrimpcrackers
When I tried accepting, one of the criteria I did not meet was the age that FollowerofChrist had set. I then double-checked my date of birth and realized that FollowerofChrist should've included "Octogenarians only" as an addendum.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ramshutu 7 months ago
Ramshutu
FollowerofChrist1955FaustianJusticeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con readily established the key differences between the points in contention throughout: namely that of informed consent of both parties, and appropriately pointed out the key flaws in the moral argument raised by pro as well. Pro did not provide burden of proof to support the claim, and attempt in places to simply dismiss Con's argument on the basis of morality, a morality for which he did not justify but mostly asserted (in a round about way).
Vote Placed by dhardage 7 months ago
dhardage
FollowerofChrist1955FaustianJusticeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro utilized a number of fallacies and strayed significantly from the original proposition to insert religious rhetoric. It is clear that the basis of pro's position is based on nothing more than religious proscriptions and not in any facts. Con clearly pointed out Pro's errors but Pro was either unwilling or unable to correct them and resorted to accusatory and, in my opinion, hateful personal comments. The winner here is clearly Con.
Vote Placed by evanjfarrar 7 months ago
evanjfarrar
FollowerofChrist1955FaustianJusticeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, as in many of his debates, engages in an ad hominem attack on Con's position that is uncalled for and indecorous; Con gets the conduct point. Con's arguments rest on the assertion that institutions that do not fall within the boundaries of Christianity are inherently wrong. Pro rightfully points out the close-mindedness this view displays and respectfully (unlike Con) responds to Pro's arguments and effectively refutes them. Given Pro's failure to conduct himself in a respectful manner, and Con's refutation of Pro's narrow, fallacious view, Con appears more convincing.
Vote Placed by Bennett91 7 months ago
Bennett91
FollowerofChrist1955FaustianJusticeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con because Pro engaged in personal attack by implying Con was immoral for simply taking the Con position. No points for sources because Con didn't use any and Pro's actually hurt his case if you read them. Now to the argument, Pro's case boils down to all non-christian unions are immoral therefore homosexuality and pedophilia are the same. Con points out this a narrow scope of morality and consent is a defining trait of moral sexuality - but Pro didn't care and simply repeated himself calling homosexuality immoral. Yet all of his arguments seems to be against sexuality in general regardless of who's involved. Pro rambled on while Con respectfully rebutted his ludicrous claims.