Total Posts:96|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Support homosexuality, against incest?

TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 4:05:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A conversation sparked between me and my fiance over a debate I had with bubbatheclown. She has always been in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, and their rights to marriage. But in describing my debate to her, she seemed to have an problem that incest should in anyway be accepted in the same way homosexuality should be. Which had me question her further.
Do you not believe that 2 consenting adults that love each other should have the same rights as heterosexuals? She agreed.
But she was still having a hard time accepting that incest should be accepted just as homosexuality should be.
I realize she wasn't alone in this belief, because I found even shootzilla (commenting on my debate) was saying the same thing.

So my question to debate.org is, can you truly say you support gay rights if you can't accept that all different sides facing just as much controversy for identical reasons, deserve the same rights?

I will hold much of my own opinion on the matter for any potential responses, but who here is in favor of homosexuality, but against incestual relationships and why are they different to you?
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
KingDebater
Posts: 687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 4:08:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 4:05:55 PM, TUF wrote:
A conversation sparked between me and my fiance over a debate I had with bubbatheclown. She has always been in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, and their rights to marriage. But in describing my debate to her, she seemed to have an problem that incest should in anyway be accepted in the same way homosexuality should be. Which had me question her further.
Do you not believe that 2 consenting adults that love each other should have the same rights as heterosexuals? She agreed.
But she was still having a hard time accepting that incest should be accepted just as homosexuality should be.
I realize she wasn't alone in this belief, because I found even shootzilla (commenting on my debate) was saying the same thing.

So my question to debate.org is, can you truly say you support gay rights if you can't accept that all different sides facing just as much controversy for identical reasons, deserve the same rights?

I will hold much of my own opinion on the matter for any potential responses, but who here is in favor of homosexuality, but against incestual relationships and why are they different to you?
Philochristos made a blog post on this topic. Incest leads to a higher chance of deformities.
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 4:21:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 4:08:50 PM, KingDebater wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:05:55 PM, TUF wrote:
A conversation sparked between me and my fiance over a debate I had with bubbatheclown. She has always been in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, and their rights to marriage. But in describing my debate to her, she seemed to have an problem that incest should in anyway be accepted in the same way homosexuality should be. Which had me question her further.
Do you not believe that 2 consenting adults that love each other should have the same rights as heterosexuals? She agreed.
But she was still having a hard time accepting that incest should be accepted just as homosexuality should be.
I realize she wasn't alone in this belief, because I found even shootzilla (commenting on my debate) was saying the same thing.

So my question to debate.org is, can you truly say you support gay rights if you can't accept that all different sides facing just as much controversy for identical reasons, deserve the same rights?

I will hold much of my own opinion on the matter for any potential responses, but who here is in favor of homosexuality, but against incestual relationships and why are they different to you?
Philochristos made a blog post on this topic. Incest leads to a higher chance of deformities.

Which is the same as saying that homosexuality leads to aids, etc. Homosexuality and incest is going to happen to matter what, but it still shouldn't isolate those not wanting to strictly re-produce.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
KingDebater
Posts: 687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 4:27:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 4:21:55 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:08:50 PM, KingDebater wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:05:55 PM, TUF wrote:
A conversation sparked between me and my fiance over a debate I had with bubbatheclown. She has always been in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, and their rights to marriage. But in describing my debate to her, she seemed to have an problem that incest should in anyway be accepted in the same way homosexuality should be. Which had me question her further.
Do you not believe that 2 consenting adults that love each other should have the same rights as heterosexuals? She agreed.
But she was still having a hard time accepting that incest should be accepted just as homosexuality should be.
I realize she wasn't alone in this belief, because I found even shootzilla (commenting on my debate) was saying the same thing.

So my question to debate.org is, can you truly say you support gay rights if you can't accept that all different sides facing just as much controversy for identical reasons, deserve the same rights?

I will hold much of my own opinion on the matter for any potential responses, but who here is in favor of homosexuality, but against incestual relationships and why are they different to you?
Philochristos made a blog post on this topic. Incest leads to a higher chance of deformities.

Which is the same as saying that homosexuality leads to aids, etc. Homosexuality and incest is going to happen to matter what, but it still shouldn't isolate those not wanting to strictly re-produce.
The acts of the gays will only harm themselves, which they'd have the right to do. Incest harms others, which you don't have the right to do especially since the person you'd be doing it to would be completely innocent.
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 4:36:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 4:27:38 PM, KingDebater wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:21:55 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:08:50 PM, KingDebater wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:05:55 PM, TUF wrote:
A conversation sparked between me and my fiance over a debate I had with bubbatheclown. She has always been in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, and their rights to marriage. But in describing my debate to her, she seemed to have an problem that incest should in anyway be accepted in the same way homosexuality should be. Which had me question her further.
Do you not believe that 2 consenting adults that love each other should have the same rights as heterosexuals? She agreed.
But she was still having a hard time accepting that incest should be accepted just as homosexuality should be.
I realize she wasn't alone in this belief, because I found even shootzilla (commenting on my debate) was saying the same thing.

So my question to debate.org is, can you truly say you support gay rights if you can't accept that all different sides facing just as much controversy for identical reasons, deserve the same rights?

I will hold much of my own opinion on the matter for any potential responses, but who here is in favor of homosexuality, but against incestual relationships and why are they different to you?
Philochristos made a blog post on this topic. Incest leads to a higher chance of deformities.

Which is the same as saying that homosexuality leads to aids, etc. Homosexuality and incest is going to happen to matter what, but it still shouldn't isolate those not wanting to strictly re-produce.
The acts of the gays will only harm themselves, which they'd have the right to do. Incest harms others, which you don't have the right to do especially since the person you'd be doing it to would be completely innocent.

The argument is equivalent to saying young (lets say 16 year old) heterosexuals should not have sex because they are both too young to take care of a child, and it is unfair to the completely innocent. Expecting them to have responsibility is one thing, but we don't make it a crime for them to have a relationship, or practice safe sex. Focusing on purely sexual consequences takes away from the real point here.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
KingDebater
Posts: 687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 4:38:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 4:34:35 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
First time I've ever actually agreed with KingDebater... O.o

Is this real life?
I might run for DOD President with all this backing I'm getting! #fingerscrossed
KingDebater
Posts: 687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 4:41:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 4:36:28 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:27:38 PM, KingDebater wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:21:55 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:08:50 PM, KingDebater wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:05:55 PM, TUF wrote:
A conversation sparked between me and my fiance over a debate I had with bubbatheclown. She has always been in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, and their rights to marriage. But in describing my debate to her, she seemed to have an problem that incest should in anyway be accepted in the same way homosexuality should be. Which had me question her further.
Do you not believe that 2 consenting adults that love each other should have the same rights as heterosexuals? She agreed.
But she was still having a hard time accepting that incest should be accepted just as homosexuality should be.
I realize she wasn't alone in this belief, because I found even shootzilla (commenting on my debate) was saying the same thing.

So my question to debate.org is, can you truly say you support gay rights if you can't accept that all different sides facing just as much controversy for identical reasons, deserve the same rights?

I will hold much of my own opinion on the matter for any potential responses, but who here is in favor of homosexuality, but against incestual relationships and why are they different to you?
Philochristos made a blog post on this topic. Incest leads to a higher chance of deformities.

Which is the same as saying that homosexuality leads to aids, etc. Homosexuality and incest is going to happen to matter what, but it still shouldn't isolate those not wanting to strictly re-produce.
The acts of the gays will only harm themselves, which they'd have the right to do. Incest harms others, which you don't have the right to do especially since the person you'd be doing it to would be completely innocent.

The argument is equivalent to saying young (lets say 16 year old) heterosexuals should not have sex because they are both too young to take care of a child, and it is unfair to the completely innocent. Expecting them to have responsibility is one thing, but we don't make it a crime for them to have a relationship, or practice safe sex. Focusing on purely sexual consequences takes away from the real point here.
16 year old heterosexuals shouldn't have sex without any contraceptives in my view.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 4:44:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
First, I'm pretty sure that there's evidence against a higher likelihood for deformities in inbred children. Don't forget that when humanity had a much, much smaller population, incest was inevitable. What incest does do on a very large scale is reduce the likelihood that genetic weaknesses are eventually chosen against. In this way, it stifles the evolutionary process.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely against incest when it pertains to "two consenting adults," but this becomes a problem in action when it comes to people from the same household in which one or both grew up. This is because most rapes and molestation are incestuous. Therefore, a greater acceptance of incest opens the door to greater access to victims by molesters and rapists.

Ultimately, do I believe that someone who had a tryst with a sibling when he or she was younger or drunk or whatever should be condemned or ridiculed? No. I think that's wrong, and no one's business.

However, do I believe that incest should be embraced in the way I believe homosexuality should? No, I don't -- they are two entirely different acts with different dynamics that must be taken into account.
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 5:22:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 4:41:06 PM, KingDebater wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:36:28 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:27:38 PM, KingDebater wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:21:55 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:08:50 PM, KingDebater wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:05:55 PM, TUF wrote:
A conversation sparked between me and my fiance over a debate I had with bubbatheclown. She has always been in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, and their rights to marriage. But in describing my debate to her, she seemed to have an problem that incest should in anyway be accepted in the same way homosexuality should be. Which had me question her further.
Do you not believe that 2 consenting adults that love each other should have the same rights as heterosexuals? She agreed.
But she was still having a hard time accepting that incest should be accepted just as homosexuality should be.
I realize she wasn't alone in this belief, because I found even shootzilla (commenting on my debate) was saying the same thing.

So my question to debate.org is, can you truly say you support gay rights if you can't accept that all different sides facing just as much controversy for identical reasons, deserve the same rights?

I will hold much of my own opinion on the matter for any potential responses, but who here is in favor of homosexuality, but against incestual relationships and why are they different to you?
Philochristos made a blog post on this topic. Incest leads to a higher chance of deformities.

Which is the same as saying that homosexuality leads to aids, etc. Homosexuality and incest is going to happen to matter what, but it still shouldn't isolate those not wanting to strictly re-produce.
The acts of the gays will only harm themselves, which they'd have the right to do. Incest harms others, which you don't have the right to do especially since the person you'd be doing it to would be completely innocent.

The argument is equivalent to saying young (lets say 16 year old) heterosexuals should not have sex because they are both too young to take care of a child, and it is unfair to the completely innocent. Expecting them to have responsibility is one thing, but we don't make it a crime for them to have a relationship, or practice safe sex. Focusing on purely sexual consequences takes away from the real point here.
16 year old heterosexuals shouldn't have sex without any contraceptives in my view.

Neither should incestual relationships. It seems we agree, now back to the topic...
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 5:26:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 4:44:32 PM, Such wrote:
First, I'm pretty sure that there's evidence against a higher likelihood for deformities in inbred children. Don't forget that when humanity had a much, much smaller population, incest was inevitable. What incest does do on a very large scale is reduce the likelihood that genetic weaknesses are eventually chosen against. In this way, it stifles the evolutionary process.

This doesn't effect the argument I am making though. See my response to kingdebater.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely against incest when it pertains to "two consenting adults," but this becomes a problem in action when it comes to people from the same household in which one or both grew up. This is because most rapes and molestation are incestuous. Therefore, a greater acceptance of incest opens the door to greater access to victims by molesters and rapists.

I think this principle is too subjective to attach just to incest, when the same can be applied to any type of relationship.

Ultimately, do I believe that someone who had a tryst with a sibling when he or she was younger or drunk or whatever should be condemned or ridiculed? No. I think that's wrong, and no one's business.

However, do I believe that incest should be embraced in the way I believe homosexuality should? No, I don't -- they are two entirely different acts with different dynamics that must be taken into account.

They are different yes, but the concept of saying you accept on and do not accept the other based on the similarities to me, reeks of hypocrisy.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 5:27:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 4:05:55 PM, TUF wrote:
A conversation sparked between me and my fiance over a debate I had with bubbatheclown. She has always been in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, and their rights to marriage. But in describing my debate to her, she seemed to have an problem that incest should in anyway be accepted in the same way homosexuality should be. Which had me question her further.
Do you not believe that 2 consenting adults that love each other should have the same rights as heterosexuals? She agreed.
But she was still having a hard time accepting that incest should be accepted just as homosexuality should be.
I realize she wasn't alone in this belief, because I found even shootzilla (commenting on my debate) was saying the same thing.

So my question to debate.org is, can you truly say you support gay rights if you can't accept that all different sides facing just as much controversy for identical reasons, deserve the same rights?

I will hold much of my own opinion on the matter for any potential responses, but who here is in favor of homosexuality, but against incestual relationships and why are they different to you?

I'm generally against both for somewhat differing reasons. The key tying them together is "societal good".

For homosexuality, the idea is that heterosexual couplings lead to family creation, families being essential for society to continue its existence. Utilizing this reasoning, if all of society was heterosexual, then no problem. If all of society was homosexual, then that society will die off within a generation.

For incest, the idea is that incestual relationships are pure, crystallized nepotism. Intermarriage allows for families, clans, societies, and countries to bond in ways that no other form of interaction can possibly convey. Incest discourages such social interactions.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 5:36:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 5:27:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:05:55 PM, TUF wrote:
A conversation sparked between me and my fiance over a debate I had with bubbatheclown. She has always been in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, and their rights to marriage. But in describing my debate to her, she seemed to have an problem that incest should in anyway be accepted in the same way homosexuality should be. Which had me question her further.
Do you not believe that 2 consenting adults that love each other should have the same rights as heterosexuals? She agreed.
But she was still having a hard time accepting that incest should be accepted just as homosexuality should be.
I realize she wasn't alone in this belief, because I found even shootzilla (commenting on my debate) was saying the same thing.

So my question to debate.org is, can you truly say you support gay rights if you can't accept that all different sides facing just as much controversy for identical reasons, deserve the same rights?

I will hold much of my own opinion on the matter for any potential responses, but who here is in favor of homosexuality, but against incestual relationships and why are they different to you?

I'm generally against both for somewhat differing reasons. The key tying them together is "societal good".

For homosexuality, the idea is that heterosexual couplings lead to family creation, families being essential for society to continue its existence. Utilizing this reasoning, if all of society was heterosexual, then no problem. If all of society was homosexual, then that society will die off within a generation.

Taking realism into account, all of society isn't homosexual, nor is it heterosexual. There will always be continual societal growth.

For incest, the idea is that incestual relationships are pure, crystallized nepotism.

Nepotism is probably a stretch, since acceptance of incestual relationships would still likely be a majority. And I can't really visualize this being such an issue anyway.

Intermarriage allows for families, clans, societies, and countries to bond in ways that no other form of interaction can possibly convey. Incest discourages such social interactions.

Does it? Your conclusion seems far off from it's predecessor statement.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 5:39:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 5:36:05 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/18/2014 5:27:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:05:55 PM, TUF wrote:
A conversation sparked between me and my fiance over a debate I had with bubbatheclown. She has always been in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, and their rights to marriage. But in describing my debate to her, she seemed to have an problem that incest should in anyway be accepted in the same way homosexuality should be. Which had me question her further.
Do you not believe that 2 consenting adults that love each other should have the same rights as heterosexuals? She agreed.
But she was still having a hard time accepting that incest should be accepted just as homosexuality should be.
I realize she wasn't alone in this belief, because I found even shootzilla (commenting on my debate) was saying the same thing.

So my question to debate.org is, can you truly say you support gay rights if you can't accept that all different sides facing just as much controversy for identical reasons, deserve the same rights?

I will hold much of my own opinion on the matter for any potential responses, but who here is in favor of homosexuality, but against incestual relationships and why are they different to you?

I'm generally against both for somewhat differing reasons. The key tying them together is "societal good".

For homosexuality, the idea is that heterosexual couplings lead to family creation, families being essential for society to continue its existence. Utilizing this reasoning, if all of society was heterosexual, then no problem. If all of society was homosexual, then that society will die off within a generation.

Taking realism into account, all of society isn't homosexual, nor is it heterosexual. There will always be continual societal growth.

The idea is that if you actively promote homosexuality, then you will not be experiencing "continual societal growth" at a certain point. Heterosexuality has none of these problems.

For incest, the idea is that incestual relationships are pure, crystallized nepotism.

Nepotism is probably a stretch, since acceptance of incestual relationships would still likely be a majority. And I can't really visualize this being such an issue anyway.

I don't understand your underlined statement.

If it isn't an issue, then why talk about it?

It's precisely because it can become an issue that you're bringing it up, and I am explaining to you why I think it can become an issue.

Intermarriage allows for families, clans, societies, and countries to bond in ways that no other form of interaction can possibly convey. Incest discourages such social interactions.

Does it? Your conclusion seems far off from it's predecessor statement.

Yes it does? I don't understand the nature of your criticism here.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 5:57:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 5:39:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2014 5:36:05 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/18/2014 5:27:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:05:55 PM, TUF wrote:
A conversation sparked between me and my fiance over a debate I had with bubbatheclown. She has always been in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, and their rights to marriage. But in describing my debate to her, she seemed to have an problem that incest should in anyway be accepted in the same way homosexuality should be. Which had me question her further.
Do you not believe that 2 consenting adults that love each other should have the same rights as heterosexuals? She agreed.
But she was still having a hard time accepting that incest should be accepted just as homosexuality should be.
I realize she wasn't alone in this belief, because I found even shootzilla (commenting on my debate) was saying the same thing.

So my question to debate.org is, can you truly say you support gay rights if you can't accept that all different sides facing just as much controversy for identical reasons, deserve the same rights?

I will hold much of my own opinion on the matter for any potential responses, but who here is in favor of homosexuality, but against incestual relationships and why are they different to you?

I'm generally against both for somewhat differing reasons. The key tying them together is "societal good".

For homosexuality, the idea is that heterosexual couplings lead to family creation, families being essential for society to continue its existence. Utilizing this reasoning, if all of society was heterosexual, then no problem. If all of society was homosexual, then that society will die off within a generation.

Taking realism into account, all of society isn't homosexual, nor is it heterosexual. There will always be continual societal growth.

The idea is that if you actively promote homosexuality, then you will not be experiencing "continual societal growth" at a certain point. Heterosexuality has none of these problems.

How does actively promoting homosexuality stop societal growth at any point though?

For incest, the idea is that incestual relationships are pure, crystallized nepotism.

Nepotism is probably a stretch, since acceptance of incestual relationships would still likely be a majority. And I can't really visualize this being such an issue anyway.

I don't understand your underlined statement.

That was supposed to say minority, sorry.

If it isn't an issue, then why talk about it? It's precisely because it can become an issue that you're bringing it up, and I am explaining to you why I think it can become an issue.

Not only not an issue, but not really more applicable than it already is. Can you give a situation where you think neopotism would be used more because of incestual relationships, and why it is so important that it is a valid argument against accepting incestual relationship? Or how it isn't applicable in heterosexuality?

Intermarriage allows for families, clans, societies, and countries to bond in ways that no other form of interaction can possibly convey. Incest discourages such social interactions.

Does it? Your conclusion seems far off from it's predecessor statement.

Yes it does? I don't understand the nature of your criticism here.

I didn't want to be so blunt, but that is essentially a... slippery slope... plus I am not seeing the impact.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 6:09:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 5:57:05 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/18/2014 5:39:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2014 5:36:05 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/18/2014 5:27:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:05:55 PM, TUF wrote:
A conversation sparked between me and my fiance over a debate I had with bubbatheclown. She has always been in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, and their rights to marriage. But in describing my debate to her, she seemed to have an problem that incest should in anyway be accepted in the same way homosexuality should be. Which had me question her further.
Do you not believe that 2 consenting adults that love each other should have the same rights as heterosexuals? She agreed.
But she was still having a hard time accepting that incest should be accepted just as homosexuality should be.
I realize she wasn't alone in this belief, because I found even shootzilla (commenting on my debate) was saying the same thing.

So my question to debate.org is, can you truly say you support gay rights if you can't accept that all different sides facing just as much controversy for identical reasons, deserve the same rights?

I will hold much of my own opinion on the matter for any potential responses, but who here is in favor of homosexuality, but against incestual relationships and why are they different to you?

I'm generally against both for somewhat differing reasons. The key tying them together is "societal good".

For homosexuality, the idea is that heterosexual couplings lead to family creation, families being essential for society to continue its existence. Utilizing this reasoning, if all of society was heterosexual, then no problem. If all of society was homosexual, then that society will die off within a generation.

Taking realism into account, all of society isn't homosexual, nor is it heterosexual. There will always be continual societal growth.

The idea is that if you actively promote homosexuality, then you will not be experiencing "continual societal growth" at a certain point. Heterosexuality has none of these problems.

How does actively promoting homosexuality stop societal growth at any point though?

For the reason I already explained. Lack of family creation. Hetero couples can make babies. Homosexual couples can't. Get enough homosexual couples, and society population will decline. This kind of problem does not happen if you "get enough hetero couples". In fact, "getting enough hetero couples" is the exact solution to this problem. So, we promote heterosexuality over homosexuality.

Should we discriminate against homosexuals? No, they are human beings and should be afforded rights as such. But, we should recognize that LGBT marriage is very, very different from hetero marriage, because of reasons stemming from family creation.

For incest, the idea is that incestual relationships are pure, crystallized nepotism.

Nepotism is probably a stretch, since acceptance of incestual relationships would still likely be a majority. And I can't really visualize this being such an issue anyway.

I don't understand your underlined statement.

That was supposed to say minority, sorry.

The idea is that if we support these practices, we are advocating for them. Why advocate for homosexuality? The main argument for the pro-LGBT camp from what I understand is that it's biological and they can't help it. Ok, fine. But advocate for it? That doesn't follow.

If it isn't an issue, then why talk about it? It's precisely because it can become an issue that you're bringing it up, and I am explaining to you why I think it can become an issue.

Not only not an issue, but not really more applicable than it already is. Can you give a situation where you think neopotism would be used more because of incestual relationships, and why it is so important that it is a valid argument against accepting incestual relationship? Or how it isn't applicable in heterosexuality?

Incest IS nepotism, definitionally. It's the epitome of nepotism. It's favoring your brothers and sisters over anyone and everyone else in the way it matters most, family creation. Many small businesses already favor close family and friends, incest is just the next step up in such nepotism.

For the underlined, my reasoning was already stated below.

Intermarriage allows for families, clans, societies, and countries to bond in ways that no other form of interaction can possibly convey. Incest discourages such social interactions.

Does it? Your conclusion seems far off from it's predecessor statement.

Yes it does? I don't understand the nature of your criticism here.

I didn't want to be so blunt, but that is essentially a... slippery slope... plus I am not seeing the impact.

Is nepotism good or bad? If it is bad, then you will not advocate for incest. I already stated why nepotism is bad...it prevents inter-societal connections from forming.

You're going to have to explain how this is a slippery slope.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 6:36:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hello, TUF. At the time that I am writing this our debate is still in the voting period, though you will likely win.
I am going to act like an extreme radical here and ask a question. Why should we human beings be free to engage in sexual behavior with whoever we please?
Arguing from the position of a person who believes in overpopulation, which I do not in reality, why do we encourage humans to breed through endorsing sexual behavior outside controlled conditions (marriage)? Believe it or not, birth control is not as reliable as people make it out to be. Abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed way to prevent conception. So why do we encourage people to take such risks through promiscuity?
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 6:36:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 4:05:55 PM, TUF wrote:
A conversation sparked between me and my fiance over a debate I had with bubbatheclown. She has always been in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, and their rights to marriage. But in describing my debate to her, she seemed to have an problem that incest should in anyway be accepted in the same way homosexuality should be. Which had me question her further.
Do you not believe that 2 consenting adults that love each other should have the same rights as heterosexuals? She agreed.
But she was still having a hard time accepting that incest should be accepted just as homosexuality should be.
I realize she wasn't alone in this belief, because I found even shootzilla (commenting on my debate) was saying the same thing.

So my question to debate.org is, can you truly say you support gay rights if you can't accept that all different sides facing just as much controversy for identical reasons, deserve the same rights?

I will hold much of my own opinion on the matter for any potential responses, but who here is in favor of homosexuality, but against incestual relationships and why are they different to you?

When I was an undergrad in my second year, I took a class that examined the moral stakes of specific cases that were, by normal convention, taboo. One of those "taboos" was incest.

The case was basically over a pair of European gay porn actors who were also twin brothers. They had sex with each other, they claimed to be lovers and all that jazz. Their films were then, and I assume still are, wildly popular throughout (especially eastern) Europe and the world -as gay porn films go. If you were wondering, clips of their "films" were shown in class. lol

There are lots of reasons that incest of any kind is different from homosexuality, but if your moral framework for permissibility is only consent and affection, then it's hard to rule out the possibility that incestious sex is at least equally morally permissible -unless you start thinking about other factors, too.

With the two brothers I referenced above, both were male (obviously), and so it would be infeasible that they could reproduce -at least with each other- so even if you consider adding the possibility of resulting reproductive problems, like birth deformities, for example, you still can't rule out incest's moral permissibility. The professor took us to this point, at least.

I think the problem here is that we're arguing this issue with a particular conclusion in mind, and seeking reasons to prove what we want to find, rather than actually trying to evaluate the moral stakes in this case. I can say that I find incest repulsive, because of the nature of one's relationship with members of our own families, in contrast to the nature of romantic relationships.

The kind of relationship one has with a sibling, parent, or member of the extended family is different than a romantic relationship because one is bound by blood (biological kinship), where the other is not. That may not be an especially good difference, but it's enough for me even if it is somewhat arbitrary -in truth, all human moral frameworks are, but some are more arbitrary than others. So, if you want to make a distinction, kinship is the fault line that morally divides homosexuality and incest. It's how I draw the line, at least.
Tsar of DDO
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 6:40:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For the reason I already explained. Lack of family creation. Hetero couples can make babies. Homosexual couples can't. Get enough homosexual couples, and society population will decline. This kind of problem does not happen if you "get enough hetero couples". In fact, "getting enough hetero couples" is the exact solution to this problem. So, we promote heterosexuality over homosexuality.

Why is this a problem? Scientists say the optimal sustainable human population on Earth is between 1 and 2 billion, so we have 3 or 4 times the recommended maximum number of passengers now. The healthiest thing for the human population is two or three generations of population decrease.

The idea is that if we support these practices, we are advocating for them. Why advocate for homosexuality? The main argument for the pro-LGBT camp from what I understand is that it's biological and they can't help it. Ok, fine. But advocate for it? That doesn't follow.

Agreed. Advocacy is an unreasonable expectation. Non-discrimination is a rational expectation in a free society. Changing how the other guy thinks is not.

I already stated why nepotism is bad...it prevents inter-societal connections from forming.

Agreed, but this cause is insufficient to warrant governmental or societal interference. The question is whether there is any good reason for anybody outside of an incestuous relationship to interfere. The answer is generally no.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 6:45:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 4:05:55 PM, TUF wrote:
A conversation sparked between me and my fiance over a debate I had with bubbatheclown. She has always been in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, and their rights to marriage. But in describing my debate to her, she seemed to have an problem that incest should in anyway be accepted in the same way homosexuality should be. Which had me question her further.
Do you not believe that 2 consenting adults that love each other should have the same rights as heterosexuals? She agreed.
But she was still having a hard time accepting that incest should be accepted just as homosexuality should be.
I realize she wasn't alone in this belief, because I found even shootzilla (commenting on my debate) was saying the same thing.

So my question to debate.org is, can you truly say you support gay rights if you can't accept that all different sides facing just as much controversy for identical reasons, deserve the same rights?

I will hold much of my own opinion on the matter for any potential responses, but who here is in favor of homosexuality, but against incestual relationships and why are they different to you?

I think that you can, in that incest is often a coercive tool within families. Individuals take advantage of other, more vulnerable family members. Also, there are clear issues with babies resulting from such trysts--there needs to be genetic diversity.

Yet, I am only against incest with closer family members (parents, siblings, grandparents, first cousins, aunts, and uncles.) I don't see the issue with second cousins marrying.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 9:00:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 4:27:38 PM, KingDebater wrote:

The acts of the gays will only harm themselves, which they'd have the right to do. Incest harms others, which you don't have the right to do especially since the person you'd be doing it to would be completely innocent.

This begs the question:
Can two brothers get married then?
It is gay, but it is also incest, and there is no issue of children.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 9:17:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 4:05:55 PM, TUF wrote:
A conversation sparked between me and my fiance over a debate I had with bubbatheclown. She has always been in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, and their rights to marriage. But in describing my debate to her, she seemed to have an problem that incest should in anyway be accepted in the same way homosexuality should be. Which had me question her further.
Do you not believe that 2 consenting adults that love each other should have the same rights as heterosexuals? She agreed.
But she was still having a hard time accepting that incest should be accepted just as homosexuality should be.
I realize she wasn't alone in this belief, because I found even shootzilla (commenting on my debate) was saying the same thing.

So my question to debate.org is, can you truly say you support gay rights if you can't accept that all different sides facing just as much controversy for identical reasons, deserve the same rights?

I will hold much of my own opinion on the matter for any potential responses, but who here is in favor of homosexuality, but against incestual relationships and why are they different to you?

I say it 100% depends on your reasoning for accepting gay marriage.
But in most cases from what I have heard on DDO, Facebook, and on the streets, the answer is, yes, you should allow both, since the core issues are:
1. Children are not a factor in marriage
2. Consenting adults ought to be allowed to marry.

I find it hypocritical to say that two people can't get married, in case they have children, which is not a factor for marriage any longer.
My work here is, finally, done.
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 10:00:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If they'e closely related, as bsh said, I would be against them having unprotected sexual relationships, but if they aren't taking the large risk of deformities and suffering of a baby they don't intend to abort,I see nothing wrong with it.
#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

https://docs.google.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 11:19:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 6:45:45 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:05:55 PM, TUF wrote:
A conversation sparked between me and my fiance over a debate I had with bubbatheclown. She has always been in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, and their rights to marriage. But in describing my debate to her, she seemed to have an problem that incest should in anyway be accepted in the same way homosexuality should be. Which had me question her further.
Do you not believe that 2 consenting adults that love each other should have the same rights as heterosexuals? She agreed.
But she was still having a hard time accepting that incest should be accepted just as homosexuality should be.
I realize she wasn't alone in this belief, because I found even shootzilla (commenting on my debate) was saying the same thing.

So my question to debate.org is, can you truly say you support gay rights if you can't accept that all different sides facing just as much controversy for identical reasons, deserve the same rights?

I will hold much of my own opinion on the matter for any potential responses, but who here is in favor of homosexuality, but against incestual relationships and why are they different to you?

I think that you can, in that incest is often a coercive tool within families. Individuals take advantage of other, more vulnerable family members.
So, should an abusive boyfriend/fiance not be allowed to get married, too?

Also, there are clear issues with babies resulting from such trysts--there needs to be genetic diversity.
Why does this matter?
What part of marrying requires child rearing?

Yet, I am only against incest with closer family members (parents, siblings, grandparents, first cousins, aunts, and uncles.) I don't see the issue with second cousins marrying.
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 11:34:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 6:40:50 PM, Oromagi wrote:
For the reason I already explained. Lack of family creation. Hetero couples can make babies. Homosexual couples can't. Get enough homosexual couples, and society population will decline. This kind of problem does not happen if you "get enough hetero couples". In fact, "getting enough hetero couples" is the exact solution to this problem. So, we promote heterosexuality over homosexuality.

Why is this a problem? Scientists say the optimal sustainable human population on Earth is between 1 and 2 billion, so we have 3 or 4 times the recommended maximum number of passengers now. The healthiest thing for the human population is two or three generations of population decrease.

While on one level I can readily agree with you here, in reality I cannot. Why? Because each and every country will vie for competitive advantage, and easily one of the most salient advantages there is to geopolitics is a gigantic population.

The idea is that if we support these practices, we are advocating for them. Why advocate for homosexuality? The main argument for the pro-LGBT camp from what I understand is that it's biological and they can't help it. Ok, fine. But advocate for it? That doesn't follow.

Agreed. Advocacy is an unreasonable expectation. Non-discrimination is a rational expectation in a free society. Changing how the other guy thinks is not.

I already stated why nepotism is bad...it prevents inter-societal connections from forming.

Agreed, but this cause is insufficient to warrant governmental or societal interference. The question is whether there is any good reason for anybody outside of an incestuous relationship to interfere. The answer is generally no.

The idea is that if it is indeed recognized as a valid concern, and the government doesn't interfere, who would?

If you think it's not a valid concern, then I can at least understand your stance, even if I disagree with it.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2014 1:05:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
While on one level I can readily agree with you here, in reality I cannot. Why? Because each and every country will vie for competitive advantage, and easily one of the most salient advantages there is to geopolitics is a gigantic population.

We are on the brink of the age of robotics. Human labor is rapidly becoming redundant and there are already far more people than jobs for people to do. Google is gunning for the first autonomous vehicles on the road in 2017. By 2035, humans driving cars, trains, planes will probably be a thing of the past with all of those jobs essentially irreplaceable. Multiply that by factory jobs, agriculture, service, construction, military, etc. and we can see that in a generation, larger populations are going to be a significant disadvantage. The nations that are looking forward to this time now will be the leaders after the next paradigm shift.

The idea is that if it is indeed recognized as a valid concern, and the government doesn't interfere, who would?:
If you think it's not a valid concern, then I can at least understand your stance, even if I disagree with it.

A valid concern, perhaps, in the interpersonal/family dynamic. A state might issue some kind of general warning about the health hazards of inbreeding, but unless we want to encourage the state to interfere whenever genetic pairing might lead to disease (and I'm confident we don't), states interference should be resisted. I really can't think of any good reason for government interference at such a private, intimate, and isolated level of society.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2014 1:34:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/19/2014 1:05:21 AM, Oromagi wrote:
While on one level I can readily agree with you here, in reality I cannot. Why? Because each and every country will vie for competitive advantage, and easily one of the most salient advantages there is to geopolitics is a gigantic population.

We are on the brink of the age of robotics. Human labor is rapidly becoming redundant and there are already far more people than jobs for people to do. Google is gunning for the first autonomous vehicles on the road in 2017. By 2035, humans driving cars, trains, planes will probably be a thing of the past with all of those jobs essentially irreplaceable. Multiply that by factory jobs, agriculture, service, construction, military, etc. and we can see that in a generation, larger populations are going to be a significant disadvantage. The nations that are looking forward to this time now will be the leaders after the next paradigm shift.

I used to think this way until I got my mind around the concept of cyber warfare. That is going to be the next generation, so even with full automation of industrial output, the information age will demand more minds capable of processing information and creating software to do so. This will still put demand upon increasing population.

The idea is that if it is indeed recognized as a valid concern, and the government doesn't interfere, who would?:
If you think it's not a valid concern, then I can at least understand your stance, even if I disagree with it.

A valid concern, perhaps, in the interpersonal/family dynamic. A state might issue some kind of general warning about the health hazards of inbreeding, but unless we want to encourage the state to interfere whenever genetic pairing might lead to disease (and I'm confident we don't), states interference should be resisted. I really can't think of any good reason for government interference at such a private, intimate, and isolated level of society.

I think we both agree that the government has no business promoting incest.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2014 1:58:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

I used to think this way until I got my mind around the concept of cyber warfare. That is going to be the next generation, so even with full automation of industrial output, the information age will demand more minds capable of processing information and creating software to do so. This will still put demand upon increasing population.


Gotta disagree. Yes, the information age will demand more brainpower, but in nothing like the proportions of job loss we're looking at. The example popularized by Joran Lanier in "Who Owns the Future" is Kodak vs. Instagram. At its height, Kodak dominated the film industry and employed 140,000. When Instagram was bought was bought by Facebook, it employed 13 people. IT by its very nature is continuously improving efficiency and making tasks redundant. My guess is that in the next generation, regular employment will be an artifact of the past.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2014 2:11:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/19/2014 1:58:21 AM, Oromagi wrote:

I used to think this way until I got my mind around the concept of cyber warfare. That is going to be the next generation, so even with full automation of industrial output, the information age will demand more minds capable of processing information and creating software to do so. This will still put demand upon increasing population.


Gotta disagree. Yes, the information age will demand more brainpower, but in nothing like the proportions of job loss we're looking at.

We're looking at different parts of the machine. You're looking at production specifically, and I agree with you that labor will continually be marginalized there and that will continue into the foreseeable future.

I'm looking at one specific product of this production - warfare capacity. Demand for brainpower in cyber warfare will be based upon the nature of the threat. If threat is large, so will the requisite need for more brainpower. It may lead to more jobs in the IT field, not necessarily in production, but in interpretation of information. I don't see warfare becoming anachronistic.

In your Instagram example below, sure, the industry itself will be labor-light, but the brainpower used to interpret the information stemming from that industry is gigantic. You have nearly full automation of production, but nearly limitless capacity for interpretation. IMHO cyber warfare will involve the latter aspect...the need to interpret and counter malicious code or what not.

Think of it this way - in WWII we had industry, and the soldiers that used industrial by-products. In what I imagine cyber warfare being, we have the information industry (with even fewer laborers) and the IT "soldiers" that use the by-products of that industry.

I imagine an extremely heavily research-intensive future, and this will require more than just computers...it will require more people too, at least in a competitive atmosphere.

The example popularized by Joran Lanier in "Who Owns the Future" is Kodak vs. Instagram. At its height, Kodak dominated the film industry and employed 140,000. When Instagram was bought was bought by Facebook, it employed 13 people. IT by its very nature is continuously improving efficiency and making tasks redundant. My guess is that in the next generation, regular employment will be an artifact of the past.

Anyway, good discussion thus far, cheers.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2014 2:22:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I imagine an extremely heavily research-intensive future, and this will require more than just computers...it will require more people too, at least in a competitive atmosphere.


Well, I won't pretend to know the future. To some degree, your POV is more optimistic however much in the context of continued warfare. It is an interesting topic. You might enjoy my fictional civilization in bubbatheclown's forum:

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