Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Homosexuality is not equal to Pedophilia

ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 8:36:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can you show me one piece of evidence that can link to the example.

"Homosexual acts harm it's victims like a Pedophile harms his."

Two problems.

1. It assumes all pedophiles are male when there have been reports that there are women who molest boys or girls.

2. It assumes that in the modern world, gay sex is harmful. The problem here is that we now have condoms, vaccines and other ways to prevent harmful diseases. Will some people be dumb and not be safe, then yes, we have them in straight people. However, the common logical thinker is going to use reason to say "I don't want diseases, so i'll use a condom." We practically even made some that have the slogan 'Feels like nothings there.' I wish somebody can actually make a logical argument as to why we should still use the argument "If gays are allowed civil rights, then so are pedophiles and murderers."
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 10:05:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 9:49:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
So you agree that it is reasonable to disapprove of all harmful sexual conduct?

All non-consensual sexual conduct.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 10:24:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 10:05:53 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:49:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
So you agree that it is reasonable to disapprove of all harmful sexual conduct?

All non-consensual sexual conduct.

This asks more question than it answers.

So we should not disapprove of suicide?
So we should not disapprove of polyandry, polygamy, and incest among adults?
If the government or society have nothing to do with "consensual" sexual conduct in privacy, why ask for marriage? Should you get rewarded and given benefit for choosing to perform private acts?
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 2:24:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 10:24:42 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:05:53 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:49:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
So you agree that it is reasonable to disapprove of all harmful sexual conduct?

All non-consensual sexual conduct.

This asks more question than it answers.

So we should not disapprove of suicide?

I see no reason to.
So we should not disapprove of polyandry, polygamy, and incest among adults?

No, no, and depends.

If the government or society have nothing to do with "consensual" sexual conduct in privacy, why ask for marriage? Should you get rewarded and given benefit for choosing to perform private acts?

That's an altogether separate argument.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 7:49:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 8:36:59 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Can you show me one piece of evidence that can link to the example.

"Homosexual acts harm it's victims like a Pedophile harms his."

Depends on what is meant by the speaker.

Two problems.

1. It assumes all pedophiles are male when there have been reports that there are women who molest boys or girls.
That is not how analogies work.....
Presumably, the issue at hand is harm, not gender.

2. It assumes that in the modern world, gay sex is harmful. The problem here is that we now have condoms, vaccines and other ways to prevent harmful diseases. Will some people be dumb and not be safe, then yes, we have them in straight people. However, the common logical thinker is going to use reason to say "I don't want diseases, so i'll use a condom." We practically even made some that have the slogan 'Feels like nothings there.'

There are two ways this could be an apt analogy, but I have no idea if it was meant in this manner:
1. Gay sex involves manipulation. In this case, the Gaylord preys on unsuspecting weak men, and convinces them to have sex. The prey is a victim of the manipulator, just like a child is victim.
2. Gay sex does irreversible damage to the psyche. In this case, damage is done by one to another. The analogy is apt.

If the issue is damnation, or even aids, that doesn't really fly, since the damage to kids is, I'm assuming, more psychological than physical (except when it isn't due to killing the witness).

I wish somebody can actually make a logical argument as to why we should still use the argument "If gays are allowed civil rights, then so are pedophiles and murderers."

I probably could with the former, but that depends on what we're talking about specifically.
My work here is, finally, done.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 8:13:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 9:49:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
So you agree that it is reasonable to disapprove of all harmful sexual conduct?

I agree that sex itself can cause harm with diseases, especially involving the exchange of bodily fluids (semen, blood, sweat, saliva, etc.) I am more of a keep it safe guy just because i'm precautious about half, if not most of, my decisions. I think it wouldn't be harmful if gays used lube, condoms, were committed to the partner they loved and got tested before hand. After all, some heteros didn't get tested and found out they had aids.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 11:38:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, homosexuality isn't an immoral form of behavior, regardless of its causes, simply because it isn't violative of fundamental moral principles such as compassion and honesty, or the categorical imperative to never treat another human person as a mere means to one's own selfish end. However, as immoral behavior involves the irresponsible, antisocial, destructive, or dishonest exercise of free will (i.e., immoral behavior involves immoral choices) if gayness is indeed genetic and not a matter of choice, well, this would be an additional reason to not view it as morally reprehensible (when, for instance, a T-800 terminates someone its behavior isn't morally evil or judgeable because there's no free exercise of volition taking place, it's merely doing what it's hardwired to do; likewise, if homosexuality is hardwired then expressing that innate orientation in a man-on-man or woman-on-woman sex act can't very well be morally condemnable). The short of it is that the cause of homosexuality would indeed be relevant to one's moral view of homosexual conduct, but for the oft overlooked fact that gayness per se is not contraindicated by core ethical and spiritual values such as compassion, honesty, and respect for human dignity.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 11:45:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 11:38:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
Well, homosexuality isn't an immoral form of behavior, regardless of its causes, simply because it isn't violative of fundamental moral principles such as compassion and honesty, or the categorical imperative to never treat another human person as a mere means to one's own selfish end. However, as immoral behavior involves the irresponsible, antisocial, destructive, or dishonest exercise of free will (i.e., immoral behavior involves immoral choices) if gayness is indeed genetic and not a matter of choice, well, this would be an additional reason to not view it as morally reprehensible (when, for instance, a T-800 terminates someone its behavior isn't morally evil or judgeable because there's no free exercise of volition taking place, it's merely doing what it's hardwired to do; likewise, if homosexuality is hardwired then expressing that innate orientation in a man-on-man or woman-on-woman sex act can't very well be morally condemnable). The short of it is that the cause of homosexuality would indeed be relevant to one's moral view of homosexual conduct, but for the oft overlooked fact that gayness per se is not contraindicated by core ethical and spiritual values such as compassion, honesty, and respect for human dignity.

Yes, the above post was originally written for Khaos_Mage's thread Regarding Homosexuals and Choice, but I think that it's also quite apropos in this thread. Please forgive the double posting.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 7:13:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Who's the idiot that thought the two categories are comparable? Two consenting adults having sex regardless of their gender is in no way comparable to an adult and a child having sex.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 8:43:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The rule is that what goes on between consenting people in their own private space is no business of the government or society at large.

Children can not consent.

I think that settle's it.
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:45:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I see nothing morally wrong with any type of sex which both/all people involved consent to. People really need to stop being so puritanical. I think this view of sex as some sort of sinful pleasure stems from religion, and the way organised religions were created to control people's actions and lives through guilt, fear and hatred.
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 3:38:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That is the logical conclusion to homosexual marriage; a hedonistic culture (that worked really well with the Greek and Roman empires), and monogamous heterosexual relationships, a necessity for societies, having no value better than singles, polygamous, unmarried couples or any other infinite possibilities or forms of interpersonal relationships as long as they are "consenting".
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 4:20:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 3:38:20 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
That is the logical conclusion to homosexual marriage; a hedonistic culture (that worked really well with the Greek and Roman empires),

I didn't know they were hedonists. Do explain.

and monogamous heterosexual relationships, a necessity for societies,

A necessity for societies? How so?

having no value better than singles, polygamous, unmarried couples or any other infinite possibilities or forms of interpersonal relationships as long as they are "consenting".

I don't see the problem you seem to have conjured, nonetheless how is gay marriage equivalent to these practices? I think, if anything, gay marriage is a bit conservative, in that it relegates queer experiences to a mere codification within an existing framework of relationships in service of the public i.e., in pursuit of a mechanism by which to situate the rearing of children.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 4:22:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:45:15 AM, Material_Girl wrote:
I see nothing morally wrong with any type of sex which both/all people involved consent to. People really need to stop being so puritanical. I think this view of sex as some sort of sinful pleasure stems from religion, and the way organised religions were created to control people's actions and lives through guilt, fear and hatred.

Do you think then that this understanding of sex is something which simply continued in secular societies by a general unwillingness to move forward (that is, as a relic of the past which, nonetheless, still has a stronghold from within the new society) or do you think there's a space within non-religious oriented public law which allows for a restrictive understanding of sexual experience?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 4:23:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 8:43:21 PM, YYW wrote:
The rule is that what goes on between consenting people in their own private space is no business of the government or society at large.

What rule?

Children can not consent.

I think that settle's it.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 5:29:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 4:23:47 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/19/2014 8:43:21 PM, YYW wrote:
The rule is that what goes on between consenting people in their own private space is no business of the government or society at large.

What rule?

The Fool: Oh no he didn't
<(8O)


Children can not consent.

I think that settle's it.

<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 6:47:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 11:38:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
Ain't Saying Nothin

Charleslb : Well, homosexuality isn't an immoral form of behavior, regardless of its causes, simply because it isn't violative of fundamental moral principles such as compassion and honesty, or the categorical imperative to never treat another human person as a mere means to one's own selfish end.

" regardless of its causes"

The Fool: What?!? Slow down.

"Sex itself" is not immoral behavior, but when it causes harm it can become an Immoral act.

1. Compassion is a "virtue", rather them moral principles. On may act moral in all circumstances and yet lack compassion. While it's good to practice compassion to stay in good habit of acting morally.

2. As a general rule, we ought not lie, but in certain situations, we may be forced to Lie to save lives.

E.g.
If Nazi soldiers are torturing an Allied soldier to know where a secret base, should they tell the truth or should they lie..??

3. Certain types of sex including homosexual sex may contradict that categorical imperative. There's nothing about it being homosexual Sex that protects it from that.

Free Will
Charleslb : However, as immoral behavior involves the irresponsible, antisocial, destructive, or dishonest exercise of free will (i.e., immoral behavior involves immoral choices) if gayness is indeed genetic and not a matter of choice, well, this would be an additional reason to not view it as morally reprehensible (when, for instance, a T-800 terminates someone its behavior isn't morally evil or judgeable because there's no free exercise of volition taking place, it's merely doing what it's hardwired to do; likewise, if homosexuality is hardwired then expressing that innate orientation in a man-on-man or woman-on-woman sex act can't very well be morally condemnable).

The Fool: Sounds like your just trying to condense as much crap as you can in one sentence. So no one can see that it doesn't actually make any sense.

Free will may not exist at all, but that does not mean we cannot condemn certain actions, and that certain actions are not immoral.

E.g.
Sophist: There is no free will, so I can"t help but punch you in the face.

The Black Knight: Well there is no free will, so I can"t help but put you in jail, or rehabilitation into you can stop punching people in the face.

The Fool: Problem solved. As for the T-800, it can"t feel remorse but it can certainly be fixed or destroyed.

In Conclusion
Charleslb: The short of it is that the cause of homosexuality would indeed be relevant to one's moral view of homosexual conduct, but for the oft overlooked fact that gayness per se is not contraindicated by core ethical and spiritual values such as compassion, honesty, and respect for human dignity.

The Fool: The short of what?! Lol. For someone with such a vast English vocabulary, you certainly have a problem of identifying and using "logical operatives" appropriately. Maybe that's why you understand my arguments.

Against The Ideologist

Which ones are the spiritual values?
<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 7:57:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 3:38:20 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
That is the logical conclusion to homosexual marriage; a hedonistic culture (that worked really well with the Greek and Roman empires), and monogamous heterosexual relationships, a necessity for societies, having no value better than singles, polygamous, unmarried couples or any other infinite possibilities or forms of interpersonal relationships as long as they are "consenting".

That is not the result of gay marriage. It's the result of straight people getting divorces.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 9:40:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 7:57:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/20/2014 3:38:20 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
That is the logical conclusion to homosexual marriage; a hedonistic culture (that worked really well with the Greek and Roman empires), and monogamous heterosexual relationships, a necessity for societies, having no value better than singles, polygamous, unmarried couples or any other infinite possibilities or forms of interpersonal relationships as long as they are "consenting".

YYW: That is not the result of gay marriage. It's the result of straight people getting divorces.

The Fool: Probably not, but I don"t think homosexuals in Greek and Roman cultures ever had "gay marriage", per se,?

The purpose of marriage it was originally, for family and child rearing, where being married as homosexuals, didn't really have a function. Homosexuals would just often have a hetro-family with children, with a homosexual lover or lovers on the side.

Keep in mind, with the brevity of life, and lack of contraception, there was no real "dating stage", as we have now before getting married.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:37:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 9:40:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The purpose of marriage it was originally, for family and child rearing, where being married as homosexuals, didn't really have a function. Homosexuals would just often have a hetro-family with children, with a homosexual lover or lovers on the side.

Adultery was less stigmatized then, then it is now. Pederasty wasn't seen as perversion, but as a means of birth control. Rape (by men of women, boys, girls and even animals) wasn't that big of a deal -at least not as it was today. etc. etc. etc.

The point is that the conventions governing sex, relationships, etc. were vastly different then than now. I'm not sure it's wise to make teleological arguments about marriage based on Greece and Rome.
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 2:27:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 4:22:58 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:45:15 AM, Material_Girl wrote:
I see nothing morally wrong with any type of sex which both/all people involved consent to. People really need to stop being so puritanical. I think this view of sex as some sort of sinful pleasure stems from religion, and the way organised religions were created to control people's actions and lives through guilt, fear and hatred.

Do you think then that this understanding of sex is something which simply continued in secular societies by a general unwillingness to move forward (that is, as a relic of the past which, nonetheless, still has a stronghold from within the new society) or do you think there's a space within non-religious oriented public law which allows for a restrictive understanding of sexual experience?

In secular societies, there tends to be less prudishness anyway, but I think unwillingness to move forward is why this attitude toward sex and so many other stupid reactionary beliefs continue to exist.
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 3:35:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
YYW: Adultery was less stigmatized then, then it is now.

The Fool: Well, I don't know about that. (1 with the poverty, and the fact that (2 heterosexual sex would almost necessarily lead to unaffordable pregnancy, for most of the population who was poor or were enslaved. Extreme importance on women remain "virgins" before marriage was to ensure that children, were born into a stabilized family, this of course ensuring fatherly support for the children. Which was not that big of a deal considering a woman could be married into a family as early as 12 years old.

Back then, if a woman slept with more than one man, in any short period of time, there would be no way to ensure was the father, and so, who was responsible for supporting a child.

Heterosexual adultery, had much larger and more harmful consequences..

And without a particular homosexual identity, like the LGBT, or homosexual class, homosexuality were more likely to be considered a different kind of relationship altogether, which didn't necessarily conflict with the heterosexual relationships, of course as we see in Plato. Although Plato's is devaluing the "physical sexual" act. Thus the platonic relationship.

YYW: Pederasty wasn't seen as perversion, but as a means of birth control.

The Fool: The general age for growing up and thus for responsibility, was much earlier, then it is now.

YYW: Rape (by men of women, boys, girls and even animals) wasn't that big of a deal -at least not as it was today. etc. etc. etc.

The Fool: They didn't really have the organization, or resources for any kind "policing" service. And, the social contract in regards to marriage was much different. It's not that was less important, or of a big deal as it was simply less practical.

YYW: The point is that the conventions governing sex, relationships, etc. were vastly different then than now.

The Fool: That is why I focus on the critical and relevant differences, as oppose to the Non sequitur's
<(89)

YYW: I'm not sure it's wise to make teleological arguments about marriage based on Greece and Rome.

The Fool: I have no doubt that America will eventually have gay marriage. My first point was simply, that if what "he" was saying was true we should expect there to have been "gay marriage" in the very past cultures. But there isn't. At least as far as I know.

While marriage on the other hand, is not being devalued because straight people are getting divorces, but that people are getting divorces, because the marriage contract has changed so much to where it doesn't provide any advantages for men, but only disadvantages, if the marriage fails.

We don't even get our own children, but rather 50% becomes the woman's, 25% to the state, and about 25% left over for the man..

And if a man does not want that deal, it doesn't matter, they take it by force with child support or jail, with some public shaming of course. So in essence we are not even free to have our own children unless we stay with a women, under the condition that at any moment, if you not doing what they want, the woman can divorce, and you lose your money and kids.

So it ends up being a kind of tyranny," if you don't stay in this, and make me happy the way I want, you're going to lose your money and kids"

Awesome, where do I sign up for that!!

They teach you in social motivation,(my University) that as a man, to not be too controlling in conversation with your wife, or girlfriend, to the point where if you say a certain amount of jokes, be sure to stop and let her get some jokes in, because you're taking over the conversation.

It's like feminist, are in your relationship to the point where you can't even be who you are, but have to act certain ways which are in accordance with feminist values of relationship. And all of this is always the man that needs to change, as though there's something fundamentally wrong with men in nature. There not as interested in changing you so much as they see you as obedient. It's the masculine man, who is always a threat because they challenge authority, and are resistant to manipulation.

Whatever happened to liberty in the sense of the government not interfering with your everyday lives.

Against The Ideologist

Is gone too far" and it's time for change..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:14:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 10:24:42 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:05:53 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:49:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
So you agree that it is reasonable to disapprove of all harmful sexual conduct?

All non-consensual sexual conduct.

This asks more question than it answers.

So we should not disapprove of suicide?

When did suicide make the list of "All Non-Consensual Sexual Conduct"?

So we should not disapprove of polyandry, polygamy, and incest among adults?

No. Not if the cases of polygamy are consensual.

As to incest, it's outlawed for the same reason the use of harmful drugs is during pregnancy.

If the government or society have nothing to do with "consensual" sexual conduct in privacy, why ask for marriage? Should you get rewarded and given benefit for choosing to perform private acts?

I don't know. Should you?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:46:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"There not as interested in changing you so much as they see you as obedient."

The Fool: Perhaps that was a little bit to much of a stereotype.
<(89)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:59:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 11:38:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
Corrections From
http://www.debate.org...

Corrections In Brackets
*If Nazi soldiers are torturing an Allied soldier to know where a secret base [is], should the [allied soldier] tell the truth or should they lie??

*The Black Knight: Well there is no free will, so I can"t help but put you in jail, or rehabilitation [until] you can stop punching people in the face.

*Maybe that's why you [don"t] understand my arguments.
<(8O)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
MasterDebater0
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 5:58:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 10:24:42 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:05:53 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:49:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
So you agree that it is reasonable to disapprove of all harmful sexual conduct?

All non-consensual sexual conduct.

This asks more question than it answers.

So we should not disapprove of suicide?
So we should not disapprove of polyandry, polygamy, and incest among adults?
If the government or society have nothing to do with "consensual" sexual conduct in privacy, why ask for marriage? Should you get rewarded and given benefit for choosing to perform private acts?

We should allow suicide, as there is no direct victim besides the perpetrator.
We should allow polygamy. However many adults of whatever genders should be able to enter a marriage, provided all of it was voluntary.
I'm going to sound crazy here, but we should conditionally allow incest. The condition being that the partners must not create a child, or, failing that, must abort the child. The only thing objectively harmful about incest is the danger of recessive genes to offspring. Everything else is a big, puritanical "EWWWW."

Marriage isn't entirely sexual, it's also economic and family-oriented. It allows the government to consider partners to be "family." It gives these following rights/benefits: joint parental rights of children, joint adoption, status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions, right to make a decision about the disposal of loved one's remains, immigration and residency for partners from other countries, crime victims recovery benefits, domestic violence protection orders, automatic inheritance in the absence of a will, Social Security, Medicare, joint filing of tax returns, bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children, child support, Joint Insurance Plans, welfare and public assistance, joint housing for elderly, and credit protection.