Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gays have the right to get married.

SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.

Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:03:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.

Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

How so?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:05:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:03:22 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.

Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

How so?

By what standard shall you deem any behavior that doesn't harm someone else off-limits?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:12:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.
Fair enough. I dont think it is icky thhough. :)
Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

CFair enough. UI dont think it is icky.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:17:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:05:33 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:03:22 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.

Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

How so?

By what standard shall you deem any behavior that doesn't harm someone else off-limits?

If the actions aren't harming people and others. One of the examples, beastiality. This not only can harm humans sexually, but it can also harm the animal. It's also a non consensual act. If somebody tries to make love to a dog, if it is a dangerous breed, the breed, rather you think you have it trained or not, will try to bite you. Species only interact perfectly with their own. Personally, if we were gonna go as far as to ban gay marriage, I would ban the eating of meat and the murder of animals. By murder, I mean the intent to kill animals. I believe animals are God's creation and are as equal life. If you say it's not healthy, Daniel ate vegetables for ten days and was better fit than those who ate meat. So that would mean we ban all fast food and a majority of what you eat in the markets.

Then again, i'm an anarchist. I believe we are just going to kill ourselves anyway when the end comes. Humans don't know how to rule over others and they always fail. Republicans these days become hypocrites and liberals are too soft. Anarchy is the only way since you must reject the idols of this world (presidents, ministers, kings, etc.)
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:17:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:12:16 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.
Fair enough. I dont think it is icky thhough. :)
Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

CFair enough. UI dont think it is icky.

What I mean is stuff like incest between two consenting adults. Or necrophilia, if the former person consents before he/she died. Or zoophilia (that is, bestiality), considering that animals often want sex, and their rights are not considered as important as those of a human being anyway.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:22:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:17:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:05:33 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:03:22 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.

Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

How so?

By what standard shall you deem any behavior that doesn't harm someone else off-limits?

If the actions aren't harming people and others. One of the examples, beastiality. This not only can harm humans sexually, but it can also harm the animal. It's also a non consensual act. If somebody tries to make love to a dog, if it is a dangerous breed, the breed, rather you think you have it trained or not, will try to bite you. Species only interact perfectly with their own. Personally, if we were gonna go as far as to ban gay marriage, I would ban the eating of meat and the murder of animals. By murder, I mean the intent to kill animals. I believe animals are God's creation and are as equal life. If you say it's not healthy, Daniel ate vegetables for ten days and was better fit than those who ate meat. So that would mean we ban all fast food and a majority of what you eat in the markets.

Then again, i'm an anarchist. I believe we are just going to kill ourselves anyway when the end comes. Humans don't know how to rule over others and they always fail. Republicans these days become hypocrites and liberals are too soft. Anarchy is the only way since you must reject the idols of this world (presidents, ministers, kings, etc.)

-"The animal cannot consent". The animal often wants sex. Isn't that close enough to consent? Besides, even if it doesn't consent, what kind of harm does that do to an animal? STDs? Nope; that's what condoms are for, right?

-"The animal will bite you". So? Don't people have a right to put their life at risk?

-"Species only interact perfectly with their own". That didn't stop the legalization of sodomy.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:23:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:22:50 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:17:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:05:33 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:03:22 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.

Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

How so?

By what standard shall you deem any behavior that doesn't harm someone else off-limits?

If the actions aren't harming people and others. One of the examples, beastiality. This not only can harm humans sexually, but it can also harm the animal. It's also a non consensual act. If somebody tries to make love to a dog, if it is a dangerous breed, the breed, rather you think you have it trained or not, will try to bite you. Species only interact perfectly with their own. Personally, if we were gonna go as far as to ban gay marriage, I would ban the eating of meat and the murder of animals. By murder, I mean the intent to kill animals. I believe animals are God's creation and are as equal life. If you say it's not healthy, Daniel ate vegetables for ten days and was better fit than those who ate meat. So that would mean we ban all fast food and a majority of what you eat in the markets.

Then again, i'm an anarchist. I believe we are just going to kill ourselves anyway when the end comes. Humans don't know how to rule over others and they always fail. Republicans these days become hypocrites and liberals are too soft. Anarchy is the only way since you must reject the idols of this world (presidents, ministers, kings, etc.)

-"The animal cannot consent". The animal often wants sex. Isn't that close enough to consent? Besides, even if it doesn't consent, what kind of harm does that do to an animal? STDs? Nope; that's what condoms are for, right?

-"The animal will bite you". So? Don't people have a right to put their life at risk?

-"Species only interact perfectly with their own". That didn't stop the legalization of sodomy.

"Republicans have become hypocrites".
Wow. What a blanket statement.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:28:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.

Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

It is actually not the sad truth. You just want it to be the case.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:30:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:17:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:12:16 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.
Fair enough. I dont think it is icky thhough. :)
Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

CFair enough. UI dont think it is icky.

What I mean is stuff like incest between two consenting adults. Or necrophilia, if the former person consents before he/she died. Or zoophilia (that is, bestiality), considering that animals often want sex, and their rights are not considered as important as those of a human being anyway.

How will you know if the animal wants to have sex or not. Many animals will actually refuse a mate, in fact female ducks have corkscrew vaginas to prevent male ducks from raping them.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:32:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:28:37 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.

Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

It is actually not the sad truth. You just want it to be the case.

It is in fact the case. You say that gay marriage is where we draw the line?
Good luck with that; a while back sodomy was illegal and evangelicals said "Marriage is where we draw the line. This gay stuff will never be legalized." They really succeeded with keeping it that way, didn't they? Pandora's out of the box, and her children will soon follow (that's not the way the story went, but you get my point).
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:33:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:30:36 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:17:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:12:16 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.
Fair enough. I dont think it is icky thhough. :)
Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

CFair enough. UI dont think it is icky.

What I mean is stuff like incest between two consenting adults. Or necrophilia, if the former person consents before he/she died. Or zoophilia (that is, bestiality), considering that animals often want sex, and their rights are not considered as important as those of a human being anyway.

How will you know if the animal wants to have sex or not. Many animals will actually refuse a mate, in fact female ducks have corkscrew vaginas to prevent male ducks from raping them.

I'm sure there are ways of knowing. At the least, most male animals would.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:34:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:32:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:28:37 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.

Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

It is actually not the sad truth. You just want it to be the case.

It is in fact the case. You say that gay marriage is where we draw the line?
Good luck with that; a while back sodomy was illegal and evangelicals said "Marriage is where we draw the line. This gay stuff will never be legalized." They really succeeded with keeping it that way, didn't they? Pandora's out of the box, and her children will soon follow (that's not the way the story went, but you get my point).

Sadolite was saying the same pandora's box crap. It's not pandora's box, it's the slippery slope fallacy. Sodomy was made legal because it was unconstitutional to ban it in the first place. You really think it's ok for the government to regulate how people have sex?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:36:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I know just how it will be: a 26 year old woman will appear on the news and say "I love my 28 year old brother and he loves me; if only these oppressive anti-incest laws were repealed! After all, I should have the right to spend my life with whoever I want!"
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:38:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:34:21 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:32:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:28:37 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.

Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

It is actually not the sad truth. You just want it to be the case.

It is in fact the case. You say that gay marriage is where we draw the line?
Good luck with that; a while back sodomy was illegal and evangelicals said "Marriage is where we draw the line. This gay stuff will never be legalized." They really succeeded with keeping it that way, didn't they? Pandora's out of the box, and her children will soon follow (that's not the way the story went, but you get my point).

Sadolite was saying the same pandora's box crap. It's not pandora's box, it's the slippery slope fallacy. Sodomy was made legal because it was unconstitutional to ban it in the first place. You really think it's ok for the government to regulate how people have sex?

Oh. So what I say is a logical fallacy now? How convenient.
What I said was entirely true, and there is nothing fallacious with my line of reasoning.
What I am saying is this: if the Government may not regulate how people have sex, then you must allow these other things (with some regulations, of course) by default.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:39:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.

What is marriage?
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:39:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:33:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:30:36 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:17:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:12:16 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.
Fair enough. I dont think it is icky thhough. :)
Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

CFair enough. UI dont think it is icky.

What I mean is stuff like incest between two consenting adults. Or necrophilia, if the former person consents before he/she died. Or zoophilia (that is, bestiality), considering that animals often want sex, and their rights are not considered as important as those of a human being anyway.

How will you know if the animal wants to have sex or not. Many animals will actually refuse a mate, in fact female ducks have corkscrew vaginas to prevent male ducks from raping them.

I'm sure there are ways of knowing. At the least, most male animals would.

Well untill we know for sure that the animal is giving consent, bestiality will remain illegal.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:39:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:38:16 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:34:21 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:32:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:28:37 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.

Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

It is actually not the sad truth. You just want it to be the case.

It is in fact the case. You say that gay marriage is where we draw the line?
Good luck with that; a while back sodomy was illegal and evangelicals said "Marriage is where we draw the line. This gay stuff will never be legalized." They really succeeded with keeping it that way, didn't they? Pandora's out of the box, and her children will soon follow (that's not the way the story went, but you get my point).

Sadolite was saying the same pandora's box crap. It's not pandora's box, it's the slippery slope fallacy. Sodomy was made legal because it was unconstitutional to ban it in the first place. You really think it's ok for the government to regulate how people have sex?

Oh. So what I say is a logical fallacy now? How convenient.
What I said was entirely true, and there is nothing fallacious with my line of reasoning.
What I am saying is this: if the Government may not regulate how people have sex, then you must allow these other things (with some regulations, of course) by default.

The best way to argue with what I just said is to say "So? What's wrong with incest and bestiality?"
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:40:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:39:09 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:33:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:30:36 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:17:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:12:16 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.
Fair enough. I dont think it is icky thhough. :)
Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

CFair enough. UI dont think it is icky.

What I mean is stuff like incest between two consenting adults. Or necrophilia, if the former person consents before he/she died. Or zoophilia (that is, bestiality), considering that animals often want sex, and their rights are not considered as important as those of a human being anyway.

How will you know if the animal wants to have sex or not. Many animals will actually refuse a mate, in fact female ducks have corkscrew vaginas to prevent male ducks from raping them.

I'm sure there are ways of knowing. At the least, most male animals would.

Well untill we know for sure that the animal is giving consent, bestiality will remain illegal.

Ah. So "Ooh! Ooh! Aah! Aah! Erection!" does not count as consent? Okay.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:41:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:22:50 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:17:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:05:33 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:03:22 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.

Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

How so?

By what standard shall you deem any behavior that doesn't harm someone else off-limits?

If the actions aren't harming people and others. One of the examples, beastiality. This not only can harm humans sexually, but it can also harm the animal. It's also a non consensual act. If somebody tries to make love to a dog, if it is a dangerous breed, the breed, rather you think you have it trained or not, will try to bite you. Species only interact perfectly with their own. Personally, if we were gonna go as far as to ban gay marriage, I would ban the eating of meat and the murder of animals. By murder, I mean the intent to kill animals. I believe animals are God's creation and are as equal life. If you say it's not healthy, Daniel ate vegetables for ten days and was better fit than those who ate meat. So that would mean we ban all fast food and a majority of what you eat in the markets.

Then again, i'm an anarchist. I believe we are just going to kill ourselves anyway when the end comes. Humans don't know how to rule over others and they always fail. Republicans these days become hypocrites and liberals are too soft. Anarchy is the only way since you must reject the idols of this world (presidents, ministers, kings, etc.)

-"The animal cannot consent". The animal often wants sex. Isn't that close enough to consent? Besides, even if it doesn't consent, what kind of harm does that do to an animal? STDs? Nope; that's what condoms are for, right?

-"The animal will bite you". So? Don't people have a right to put their life at risk?

-"Species only interact perfectly with their own". That didn't stop the legalization of sodomy.

Consent is a major big deal. If your gonna shrug off consent, then you might as well think rape is just a tiny boo boo that little jimmy got on the street. "Oh walk it off little jimmy." No. Consent is the MAJOR issue in this. Animals want sex. Humans want sex. Yet, I doubt this is gonna legalize rape. Unless you would legalize it and beastiality.

Your not gonna be able to put the condom on and get it in before you risk your life and lose your weiner. As for a girl, I am still trying to figure out how this works. Heard a story about a girl and a horse. Anyways, the story ends with her in a wheel chair and body cast.

"Breaking news. It's now found that gays are no longer a member of the human species. They are now called F(bleep)gopus. This rare breed only forms from mutations in the human body. So once somebody is gay, they are to no longer be considered human." By the way, this is satire mocking your phrasing. Really? Way to degrade gays to being non humans. Humans interact with humans, ducks with ducks, bears with bears, cats with cats, dogs with dogs.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:43:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:38:16 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:34:21 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:32:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:28:37 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.

Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

It is actually not the sad truth. You just want it to be the case.

It is in fact the case. You say that gay marriage is where we draw the line?
Good luck with that; a while back sodomy was illegal and evangelicals said "Marriage is where we draw the line. This gay stuff will never be legalized." They really succeeded with keeping it that way, didn't they? Pandora's out of the box, and her children will soon follow (that's not the way the story went, but you get my point).

Sadolite was saying the same pandora's box crap. It's not pandora's box, it's the slippery slope fallacy. Sodomy was made legal because it was unconstitutional to ban it in the first place. You really think it's ok for the government to regulate how people have sex?

Oh. So what I say is a logical fallacy now? How convenient.

Yes it is. How convenient for you that you can convince yourself with such weak arguments.

What I said was entirely true, and there is nothing fallacious with my line of reasoning.

Is there any evidence to suggest bestiality or pedophilia stands any chance of being legalized? If you can't then it proves you're using a slippery slope argument. Wild speculation of what possibly could be, not what is likely to happen.

What I am saying is this: if the Government may not regulate how people have sex, then you must allow these other things (with some regulations, of course) by default.

..... yea you're trolling.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:49:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:40:41 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:39:09 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:33:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:30:36 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:17:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:12:16 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:47:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:25:56 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
You don't have to support same sex marrige, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Religion should not dictate the law.
Fair enough. I dont think it is icky thhough. :)
Unfortunately, the nature of the United States means that you are correct. However, we must also allow some...other stuff, which would make even a Liberal go "ick". It is the sad truth.

CFair enough. UI dont think it is icky.

What I mean is stuff like incest between two consenting adults. Or necrophilia, if the former person consents before he/she died. Or zoophilia (that is, bestiality), considering that animals often want sex, and their rights are not considered as important as those of a human being anyway.

How will you know if the animal wants to have sex or not. Many animals will actually refuse a mate, in fact female ducks have corkscrew vaginas to prevent male ducks from raping them.

I'm sure there are ways of knowing. At the least, most male animals would.

Well untill we know for sure that the animal is giving consent, bestiality will remain illegal.

Ah. So "Ooh! Ooh! Aah! Aah! Erection!" does not count as consent? Okay.

It's not just erection. It's about rather the person says yes. Once again, the rapist gets erect and the victim can be erect or wet. Doesn't mean they consent. It's their mind playing tricks on them. They are saying no, but their bodies aren't.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 4:00:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Single persons are not protected equally under the law. Civil marriage is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Single and married person's are not protected equally.

Simple solution, is to end civil marriage. Governments should not be involved in marriage. Everyone should be treated equally regardless of sexual habits, receiving neither benefit nor punishment. Government should not be defining acceptable personal behavior.

For civil legal purposes, people can use contracts for protection of individual's personal circumstances.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 3:23:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have challenged so many bigots about this before and so far I haven't heard one valid, logic-based reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples. Not one. It's always the same logical fallacies, religious, fear-based nonsense and plain old bigotry... No one can give me at LEAST one reason that doesn't include religion and comparing gays to child molesters.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 3:33:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 3:23:26 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
I have challenged so many bigots about this before and so far I haven't heard one valid, logic-based reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples. Not one. It's always the same logical fallacies, religious, fear-based nonsense and plain old bigotry... No one can give me at LEAST one reason that doesn't include religion and comparing gays to child molesters.

Really?
You've never heard the "marriage is performed by the state to encourage procreation" argument?
It doesn't hold water anymore, given tax laws, but there is one for you.
If you argue that is the government function in marriage, and that is what a marriage ought to be for, then gay should not marry. This same logic bars incest, as well.
My work here is, finally, done.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 3:39:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 3:33:17 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/19/2015 3:23:26 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
I have challenged so many bigots about this before and so far I haven't heard one valid, logic-based reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples. Not one. It's always the same logical fallacies, religious, fear-based nonsense and plain old bigotry... No one can give me at LEAST one reason that doesn't include religion and comparing gays to child molesters.

Really?
You've never heard the "marriage is performed by the state to encourage procreation" argument?
It doesn't hold water anymore, given tax laws, but there is one for you.
If you argue that is the government function in marriage, and that is what a marriage ought to be for, then gay should not marry. This same logic bars incest, as well.

I believe the "procreation" argument falls under the "religious nonsense" category. If it were actually valid, the government would make it a law for ALL married couples to procreate which as we all know is not the case seeing as infertile, and post-menopausal couples can and do get married. And incest can and does result in procreation as well.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 3:44:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 3:39:31 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/19/2015 3:33:17 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/19/2015 3:23:26 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
I have challenged so many bigots about this before and so far I haven't heard one valid, logic-based reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples. Not one. It's always the same logical fallacies, religious, fear-based nonsense and plain old bigotry... No one can give me at LEAST one reason that doesn't include religion and comparing gays to child molesters.

Really?
You've never heard the "marriage is performed by the state to encourage procreation" argument?
It doesn't hold water anymore, given tax laws, but there is one for you.
If you argue that is the government function in marriage, and that is what a marriage ought to be for, then gay should not marry. This same logic bars incest, as well.

I believe the "procreation" argument falls under the "religious nonsense" category.
I disagree.
Procreation is the health of the state, so a society has a reason to procreate.
Tell me, what purpose does marriage have in your opinion?

If it were actually valid, the government would make it a law for ALL married couples to procreate which as we all know is not the case seeing as infertile, and post-menopausal couples can and do get married.
Well, you can't really mandate that, but sex is a reason for divorce, so it was clearly important at its inception. Also, those are statuses, which you can't really make a law prohibiting. (it is not illegal to be high or homeless, for example)
As I said, it is a moot point now, but without that reason, I, frankly, see no reason why government should be involved in marriage at all, and should just not deal with it ever.

And incest can and does result in procreation as well.
Which is why they can't get married.
However, if procreation is not an issue, then you should have no problem with this, right?
My work here is, finally, done.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 3:59:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I believe the "procreation" argument falls under the "religious nonsense" category.
I disagree.
Procreation is the health of the state, so a society has a reason to procreate.
Tell me, what purpose does marriage have in your opinion?

You are aware you don't have to be married to procreate, right? The purpose of marriage in most countries is to form a social and economic bond between two (or more) people in society. Under a marriage, a couple is given certain rights and protections under the law. You don't have to procreate in a marriage.

If it were actually valid, the government would make it a law for ALL married couples to procreate which as we all know is not the case seeing as infertile, and post-menopausal couples can and do get married.
Well, you can't really mandate that, but sex is a reason for divorce, so it was clearly important at its inception. Also, those are statuses, which you can't really make a law prohibiting. (it is not illegal to be high or homeless, for example)

It's also not illegal to be a homosexual either.

As I said, it is a moot point now, but without that reason, I, frankly, see no reason why government should be involved in marriage at all, and should just not deal with it ever.

Then I am not really sure you know what exactly marriage is and the role it plays in society. There is a reason why gay couples have been fighting for this for the last decade.

And incest can and does result in procreation as well.
Which is why they can't get married.
However, if procreation is not an issue, then you should have no problem with this, right?

So the only thing stopping incest and procreation as a result of incest is marriage? I think not.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 4:09:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 3:59:03 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
I believe the "procreation" argument falls under the "religious nonsense" category.
I disagree.
Procreation is the health of the state, so a society has a reason to procreate.
Tell me, what purpose does marriage have in your opinion?

You are aware you don't have to be married to procreate, right? The purpose of marriage in most countries is to form a social and economic bond between two (or more) people in society. Under a marriage, a couple is given certain rights and protections under the law. You don't have to procreate in a marriage.
I'm aware of all of this.
However, in the past, marriage was expected to produce children. "settle down, get married, have kids" and the law reflected that.

Regardless, it is no longer the issue. But, what purpose does marriage have?
Have a will and power of attorney, and that is 99% of the rights and responsibilities that comes with marriage. There is no legal need for it.

If it were actually valid, the government would make it a law for ALL married couples to procreate which as we all know is not the case seeing as infertile, and post-menopausal couples can and do get married.
Well, you can't really mandate that, but sex is a reason for divorce, so it was clearly important at its inception. Also, those are statuses, which you can't really make a law prohibiting. (it is not illegal to be high or homeless, for example)

It's also not illegal to be a homosexual either.
It is also not illegal for a homosexual to marry, either. Stay on point.

As I said, it is a moot point now, but without that reason, I, frankly, see no reason why government should be involved in marriage at all, and should just not deal with it ever.

Then I am not really sure you know what exactly marriage is and the role it plays in society. There is a reason why gay couples have been fighting for this for the last decade.
Do tell, then.
There is only a handful of "rights" that married couples receive that the government has any say over, and can easily be worked around with a simple reform.
No more married filing jointly taxes and SS name a benefactor. Boom, not much else.

And incest can and does result in procreation as well.
Which is why they can't get married.
However, if procreation is not an issue, then you should have no problem with this, right?

So the only thing stopping incest and procreation as a result of incest is marriage? I think not.
No.
But, if procreation is not the reason for marriage, then there is no reason two related people cannot get married. They are not required, or expected, to have a child.
So, feel free to tell me why two brothers should not be allowed to get married. Go on, feel free to judge them, while you tell others not to judge others.

And, to be clear, I am ambivalent on this issue. I don't really care.
I find most people are hypocrites, regardless of their side in this issue.
My work here is, finally, done.