Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Comparing homo with beastiality/pedophilia

Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 12:04:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
This comparison will probably never cease to be made. When people say they can't see anything wrong with two adult consenting same-chromosomed people loving each other (homosexual relationships), or even marrying each other (gay marriage), they sometimes receive the question if said people also see no problems in people marrying their children or their pets.

We who are pro-LGBT have all been in that case, when we explain the critical difference between homosexuality and beastiality/pedophilia, the ability of CONSENT. Which can't happen in pedophiliac or beastial sex. Then what do some of them reply? You know it. "You're wrong. Children and animal could consent.", for later referring to how children and animals could be deceived to consent.

But. It's quite a big difference on consenting after being deceived and consenting on legal grounds. The latter one means that you are of rational senses and adult intelligence and experience, and thus could understand the risks about sexual acts. Naturally, many people who are even adult would fall out of this law, such as people with mental disorders like Down's syndrome.

If these "But children and animals actually could consent!" also would see no problem in labelling animals and children able to legally consent, why don't they go all the way? Why don't they call for children and animals getting the rights to do things like signing contracts and apply for bank loans? That wouldn't be any problem if children and animals allegedly could understand fully about sex. In these peoples' logics, even people under the influence of bath salts and deeply senile 100-year olds would be totally able to sign a contract while fully understanding its meaning and consequences.

So why do they still make this comparision? Pedophiliac and beastial acts have victims, a homosexual act is able to do on the same grounds as on a heterosexual act, out of two consenting adults, thus, no victim. Here are some theories I have of why they do this comparison:

* Since beastiality and pedophiliac acts is among the most hated things by humanity, these homophobes do out of wishful thinking want homosexuality to be equalised with those.

* If the homophobe is religious, his holy book has probably already placed homosexual acts in the same dominion as pedophiliac acts and beastiality. So all of them are crimes, thus in the same dominion of his religion. This could also explain why some religious homophobes unjustly compare homosexual acts with things like murder.

Naturally, some pro-LGBT could do some flawed logics while defending homosexuals, like giving "It is love" as the only premise. That alone would justify pedophiliac acts as well. But these advocaters almost always mean "love between two consensual people", and they adjust the goalposts to this if one asks them further. So they just reduce it to "It is love" out of laziness I guess.

So, what do you think? Do you have any other theory?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 2:00:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 12:04:45 PM, Jovian wrote:
This comparison will probably never cease to be made. When people say they can't see anything wrong with two adult consenting same-chromosomed people loving each other (homosexual relationships), or even marrying each other (gay marriage), they sometimes receive the question if said people also see no problems in people marrying their children or their pets.

We who are pro-LGBT have all been in that case, when we explain the critical difference between homosexuality and beastiality/pedophilia, the ability of CONSENT. Which can't happen in pedophiliac or beastial sex. Then what do some of them reply? You know it. "You're wrong. Children and animal could consent.", for later referring to how children and animals could be deceived to consent.

But. It's quite a big difference on consenting after being deceived and consenting on legal grounds. The latter one means that you are of rational senses and adult intelligence and experience, and thus could understand the risks about sexual acts. Naturally, many people who are even adult would fall out of this law, such as people with mental disorders like Down's syndrome.

If these "But children and animals actually could consent!" also would see no problem in labelling animals and children able to legally consent, why don't they go all the way? Why don't they call for children and animals getting the rights to do things like signing contracts and apply for bank loans? That wouldn't be any problem if children and animals allegedly could understand fully about sex. In these peoples' logics, even people under the influence of bath salts and deeply senile 100-year olds would be totally able to sign a contract while fully understanding its meaning and consequences.

So why do they still make this comparision? Pedophiliac and beastial acts have victims, a homosexual act is able to do on the same grounds as on a heterosexual act, out of two consenting adults, thus, no victim. Here are some theories I have of why they do this comparison:

* Since beastiality and pedophiliac acts is among the most hated things by humanity, these homophobes do out of wishful thinking want homosexuality to be equalised with those.

* If the homophobe is religious, his holy book has probably already placed homosexual acts in the same dominion as pedophiliac acts and beastiality. So all of them are crimes, thus in the same dominion of his religion. This could also explain why some religious homophobes unjustly compare homosexual acts with things like murder.

Naturally, some pro-LGBT could do some flawed logics while defending homosexuals, like giving "It is love" as the only premise. That alone would justify pedophiliac acts as well. But these advocaters almost always mean "love between two consensual people", and they adjust the goalposts to this if one asks them further. So they just reduce it to "It is love" out of laziness I guess.

So, what do you think? Do you have any other theory?

How do you define consent?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 2:48:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 2:00:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 12:04:45 PM, Jovian wrote:
This comparison will probably never cease to be made. When people say they can't see anything wrong with two adult consenting same-chromosomed people loving each other (homosexual relationships), or even marrying each other (gay marriage), they sometimes receive the question if said people also see no problems in people marrying their children or their pets.

We who are pro-LGBT have all been in that case, when we explain the critical difference between homosexuality and beastiality/pedophilia, the ability of CONSENT. Which can't happen in pedophiliac or beastial sex. Then what do some of them reply? You know it. "You're wrong. Children and animal could consent.", for later referring to how children and animals could be deceived to consent.

But. It's quite a big difference on consenting after being deceived and consenting on legal grounds. The latter one means that you are of rational senses and adult intelligence and experience, and thus could understand the risks about sexual acts. Naturally, many people who are even adult would fall out of this law, such as people with mental disorders like Down's syndrome.

If these "But children and animals actually could consent!" also would see no problem in labelling animals and children able to legally consent, why don't they go all the way? Why don't they call for children and animals getting the rights to do things like signing contracts and apply for bank loans? That wouldn't be any problem if children and animals allegedly could understand fully about sex. In these peoples' logics, even people under the influence of bath salts and deeply senile 100-year olds would be totally able to sign a contract while fully understanding its meaning and consequences.

So why do they still make this comparision? Pedophiliac and beastial acts have victims, a homosexual act is able to do on the same grounds as on a heterosexual act, out of two consenting adults, thus, no victim. Here are some theories I have of why they do this comparison:

* Since beastiality and pedophiliac acts is among the most hated things by humanity, these homophobes do out of wishful thinking want homosexuality to be equalised with those.

* If the homophobe is religious, his holy book has probably already placed homosexual acts in the same dominion as pedophiliac acts and beastiality. So all of them are crimes, thus in the same dominion of his religion. This could also explain why some religious homophobes unjustly compare homosexual acts with things like murder.

Naturally, some pro-LGBT could do some flawed logics while defending homosexuals, like giving "It is love" as the only premise. That alone would justify pedophiliac acts as well. But these advocaters almost always mean "love between two consensual people", and they adjust the goalposts to this if one asks them further. So they just reduce it to "It is love" out of laziness I guess.

So, what do you think? Do you have any other theory?

How do you define consent?

To the law, consenting to sexual acts means that you are out of enough maturity, intelligence and rationality that you could understand about what you are doing. Of course consenting to sex, contracts and bank loans could be understood fully of non-adults, but puberty leaves teenagers impulsive and thus open for being deceived. So even if there somewhere would be an intelligent teenage mastermind who could be counted as having the intelligence and knowledge of a 40 year old, there is still this law to protect the vast majority which aren't, in order to not render them vulnerable. And the law would of course also include said mastermind.

People who aren't adult could still be legally allowed to have sex, but this with other teenagers, and not with adults. There are complimentary laws in many countries which say that a 15 year old for example is allowed to have sex with a 17 year old, but not with a 19 year old. This is of course very good.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 2:58:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 2:48:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:00:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 12:04:45 PM, Jovian wrote:
This comparison will probably never cease to be made. When people say they can't see anything wrong with two adult consenting same-chromosomed people loving each other (homosexual relationships), or even marrying each other (gay marriage), they sometimes receive the question if said people also see no problems in people marrying their children or their pets.

We who are pro-LGBT have all been in that case, when we explain the critical difference between homosexuality and beastiality/pedophilia, the ability of CONSENT. Which can't happen in pedophiliac or beastial sex. Then what do some of them reply? You know it. "You're wrong. Children and animal could consent.", for later referring to how children and animals could be deceived to consent.

But. It's quite a big difference on consenting after being deceived and consenting on legal grounds. The latter one means that you are of rational senses and adult intelligence and experience, and thus could understand the risks about sexual acts. Naturally, many people who are even adult would fall out of this law, such as people with mental disorders like Down's syndrome.

If these "But children and animals actually could consent!" also would see no problem in labelling animals and children able to legally consent, why don't they go all the way? Why don't they call for children and animals getting the rights to do things like signing contracts and apply for bank loans? That wouldn't be any problem if children and animals allegedly could understand fully about sex. In these peoples' logics, even people under the influence of bath salts and deeply senile 100-year olds would be totally able to sign a contract while fully understanding its meaning and consequences.

So why do they still make this comparision? Pedophiliac and beastial acts have victims, a homosexual act is able to do on the same grounds as on a heterosexual act, out of two consenting adults, thus, no victim. Here are some theories I have of why they do this comparison:

* Since beastiality and pedophiliac acts is among the most hated things by humanity, these homophobes do out of wishful thinking want homosexuality to be equalised with those.

* If the homophobe is religious, his holy book has probably already placed homosexual acts in the same dominion as pedophiliac acts and beastiality. So all of them are crimes, thus in the same dominion of his religion. This could also explain why some religious homophobes unjustly compare homosexual acts with things like murder.

Naturally, some pro-LGBT could do some flawed logics while defending homosexuals, like giving "It is love" as the only premise. That alone would justify pedophiliac acts as well. But these advocaters almost always mean "love between two consensual people", and they adjust the goalposts to this if one asks them further. So they just reduce it to "It is love" out of laziness I guess.

So, what do you think? Do you have any other theory?

How do you define consent?

To the law, consenting to sexual acts means that you are out of enough maturity, intelligence and rationality that you could understand about what you are doing. Of course consenting to sex, contracts and bank loans could be understood fully of non-adults, but puberty leaves teenagers impulsive and thus open for being deceived. So even if there somewhere would be an intelligent teenage mastermind who could be counted as having the intelligence and knowledge of a 40 year old, there is still this law to protect the vast majority which aren't, in order to not render them vulnerable. And the law would of course also include said mastermind.

People who aren't adult could still be legally allowed to have sex, but this with other teenagers, and not with adults. There are complimentary laws in many countries which say that a 15 year old for example is allowed to have sex with a 17 year old, but not with a 19 year old. This is of course very good.

Why do you need "maturity, intelligence, and rationality" to have sex? Having sex while drunk isn't illegal; likewise, should a 30 year old man with Down Syndrome be barred from ever having sex? Animals are pretty stupid; should we keep them from having sex with each other?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:19:06 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 2:58:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:48:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:00:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 12:04:45 PM, Jovian wrote:
This comparison will probably never cease to be made. When people say they can't see anything wrong with two adult consenting same-chromosomed people loving each other (homosexual relationships), or even marrying each other (gay marriage), they sometimes receive the question if said people also see no problems in people marrying their children or their pets.

We who are pro-LGBT have all been in that case, when we explain the critical difference between homosexuality and beastiality/pedophilia, the ability of CONSENT. Which can't happen in pedophiliac or beastial sex. Then what do some of them reply? You know it. "You're wrong. Children and animal could consent.", for later referring to how children and animals could be deceived to consent.

But. It's quite a big difference on consenting after being deceived and consenting on legal grounds. The latter one means that you are of rational senses and adult intelligence and experience, and thus could understand the risks about sexual acts. Naturally, many people who are even adult would fall out of this law, such as people with mental disorders like Down's syndrome.

If these "But children and animals actually could consent!" also would see no problem in labelling animals and children able to legally consent, why don't they go all the way? Why don't they call for children and animals getting the rights to do things like signing contracts and apply for bank loans? That wouldn't be any problem if children and animals allegedly could understand fully about sex. In these peoples' logics, even people under the influence of bath salts and deeply senile 100-year olds would be totally able to sign a contract while fully understanding its meaning and consequences.

So why do they still make this comparision? Pedophiliac and beastial acts have victims, a homosexual act is able to do on the same grounds as on a heterosexual act, out of two consenting adults, thus, no victim. Here are some theories I have of why they do this comparison:

* Since beastiality and pedophiliac acts is among the most hated things by humanity, these homophobes do out of wishful thinking want homosexuality to be equalised with those.

* If the homophobe is religious, his holy book has probably already placed homosexual acts in the same dominion as pedophiliac acts and beastiality. So all of them are crimes, thus in the same dominion of his religion. This could also explain why some religious homophobes unjustly compare homosexual acts with things like murder.

Naturally, some pro-LGBT could do some flawed logics while defending homosexuals, like giving "It is love" as the only premise. That alone would justify pedophiliac acts as well. But these advocaters almost always mean "love between two consensual people", and they adjust the goalposts to this if one asks them further. So they just reduce it to "It is love" out of laziness I guess.

So, what do you think? Do you have any other theory?

How do you define consent?

To the law, consenting to sexual acts means that you are out of enough maturity, intelligence and rationality that you could understand about what you are doing. Of course consenting to sex, contracts and bank loans could be understood fully of non-adults, but puberty leaves teenagers impulsive and thus open for being deceived. So even if there somewhere would be an intelligent teenage mastermind who could be counted as having the intelligence and knowledge of a 40 year old, there is still this law to protect the vast majority which aren't, in order to not render them vulnerable. And the law would of course also include said mastermind.

People who aren't adult could still be legally allowed to have sex, but this with other teenagers, and not with adults. There are complimentary laws in many countries which say that a 15 year old for example is allowed to have sex with a 17 year old, but not with a 19 year old. This is of course very good.

Why do you need "maturity, intelligence, and rationality" to have sex?

To understand about how it is an act whereas the most holy faculties of a humans body are being used. Thus, people need to learn about how to not abuse anyone with this, and also to prevent themselves from being abused, in order to not becoming mentally harmed. Also to not spread STDs, involuntarily make oneself a parent etc.

Having sex while drunk isn't illegal;

No. But for a totally sober one to have sex with someone who has chucked 15 beers is problematic, since this mashed person while inintoxicated could be easy to deceive to do something he or she will repent afterwards.

Two mashed people together however, I do not know. If they are both equally not able to abuse the other one out of power, it would be a consensual concern I guess. There must be very many similar cases where one of them reported the other one for rape though. I don't know what jurisprudence would say about that.

likewise, should a 30 year old man with Down Syndrome be barred from ever having sex?

Nope. It would be totally fine for him to do it with another one of same intelligence. For someone without a disorder to have sex with this man however is very problematic, also here, one here is easy to deceive.

Animals are pretty stupid; should we keep them from having sex with each other?

Why in the world would conduct between humans, who have a totally different brain and emotional world, be implemented on animals? Have you heard of anyone who is willing to take a full time job in sitting in a chair in the middle of the Nevada Desert only to make coyotes be nice to each other?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:24:39 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:19:06 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:58:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:48:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:00:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 12:04:45 PM, Jovian wrote:
This comparison will probably never cease to be made. When people say they can't see anything wrong with two adult consenting same-chromosomed people loving each other (homosexual relationships), or even marrying each other (gay marriage), they sometimes receive the question if said people also see no problems in people marrying their children or their pets.

We who are pro-LGBT have all been in that case, when we explain the critical difference between homosexuality and beastiality/pedophilia, the ability of CONSENT. Which can't happen in pedophiliac or beastial sex. Then what do some of them reply? You know it. "You're wrong. Children and animal could consent.", for later referring to how children and animals could be deceived to consent.

But. It's quite a big difference on consenting after being deceived and consenting on legal grounds. The latter one means that you are of rational senses and adult intelligence and experience, and thus could understand the risks about sexual acts. Naturally, many people who are even adult would fall out of this law, such as people with mental disorders like Down's syndrome.

If these "But children and animals actually could consent!" also would see no problem in labelling animals and children able to legally consent, why don't they go all the way? Why don't they call for children and animals getting the rights to do things like signing contracts and apply for bank loans? That wouldn't be any problem if children and animals allegedly could understand fully about sex. In these peoples' logics, even people under the influence of bath salts and deeply senile 100-year olds would be totally able to sign a contract while fully understanding its meaning and consequences.

So why do they still make this comparision? Pedophiliac and beastial acts have victims, a homosexual act is able to do on the same grounds as on a heterosexual act, out of two consenting adults, thus, no victim. Here are some theories I have of why they do this comparison:

* Since beastiality and pedophiliac acts is among the most hated things by humanity, these homophobes do out of wishful thinking want homosexuality to be equalised with those.

* If the homophobe is religious, his holy book has probably already placed homosexual acts in the same dominion as pedophiliac acts and beastiality. So all of them are crimes, thus in the same dominion of his religion. This could also explain why some religious homophobes unjustly compare homosexual acts with things like murder.

Naturally, some pro-LGBT could do some flawed logics while defending homosexuals, like giving "It is love" as the only premise. That alone would justify pedophiliac acts as well. But these advocaters almost always mean "love between two consensual people", and they adjust the goalposts to this if one asks them further. So they just reduce it to "It is love" out of laziness I guess.

So, what do you think? Do you have any other theory?

How do you define consent?

To the law, consenting to sexual acts means that you are out of enough maturity, intelligence and rationality that you could understand about what you are doing. Of course consenting to sex, contracts and bank loans could be understood fully of non-adults, but puberty leaves teenagers impulsive and thus open for being deceived. So even if there somewhere would be an intelligent teenage mastermind who could be counted as having the intelligence and knowledge of a 40 year old, there is still this law to protect the vast majority which aren't, in order to not render them vulnerable. And the law would of course also include said mastermind.

People who aren't adult could still be legally allowed to have sex, but this with other teenagers, and not with adults. There are complimentary laws in many countries which say that a 15 year old for example is allowed to have sex with a 17 year old, but not with a 19 year old. This is of course very good.

Why do you need "maturity, intelligence, and rationality" to have sex?

To understand about how it is an act whereas the most holy faculties of a humans body are being used. Thus, people need to learn about how to not abuse anyone with this, and also to prevent themselves from being abused, in order to not becoming mentally harmed. Also to not spread STDs, involuntarily make oneself a parent etc.

Most holy faculties? You almost sound religious now.

Having sex while drunk isn't illegal;

No. But for a totally sober one to have sex with someone who has chucked 15 beers is problematic, since this mashed person while inintoxicated could be easy to deceive to do something he or she will repent afterwards.

Two mashed people together however, I do not know. If they are both equally not able to abuse the other one out of power, it would be a consensual concern I guess. There must be very many similar cases where one of them reported the other one for rape though. I don't know what jurisprudence would say about that.

likewise, should a 30 year old man with Down Syndrome be barred from ever having sex?

Nope. It would be totally fine for him to do it with another one of same intelligence. For someone without a disorder to have sex with this man however is very problematic, also here, one here is easy to deceive.

Animals are pretty stupid; should we keep them from having sex with each other?

Why in the world would conduct between humans, who have a totally different brain and emotional world, be implemented on animals? Have you heard of anyone who is willing to take a full time job in sitting in a chair in the middle of the Nevada Desert only to make coyotes be nice to each other?

So you're saying if you're stupid you should only be allowed to have sex with someone who's equally stupid so that you aren't taken advantage of?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:32:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:24:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:19:06 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:58:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:48:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:00:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 12:04:45 PM, Jovian wrote:
This comparison will probably never cease to be made. When people say they can't see anything wrong with two adult consenting same-chromosomed people loving each other (homosexual relationships), or even marrying each other (gay marriage), they sometimes receive the question if said people also see no problems in people marrying their children or their pets.

We who are pro-LGBT have all been in that case, when we explain the critical difference between homosexuality and beastiality/pedophilia, the ability of CONSENT. Which can't happen in pedophiliac or beastial sex. Then what do some of them reply? You know it. "You're wrong. Children and animal could consent.", for later referring to how children and animals could be deceived to consent.

But. It's quite a big difference on consenting after being deceived and consenting on legal grounds. The latter one means that you are of rational senses and adult intelligence and experience, and thus could understand the risks about sexual acts. Naturally, many people who are even adult would fall out of this law, such as people with mental disorders like Down's syndrome.

If these "But children and animals actually could consent!" also would see no problem in labelling animals and children able to legally consent, why don't they go all the way? Why don't they call for children and animals getting the rights to do things like signing contracts and apply for bank loans? That wouldn't be any problem if children and animals allegedly could understand fully about sex. In these peoples' logics, even people under the influence of bath salts and deeply senile 100-year olds would be totally able to sign a contract while fully understanding its meaning and consequences.

So why do they still make this comparision? Pedophiliac and beastial acts have victims, a homosexual act is able to do on the same grounds as on a heterosexual act, out of two consenting adults, thus, no victim. Here are some theories I have of why they do this comparison:

* Since beastiality and pedophiliac acts is among the most hated things by humanity, these homophobes do out of wishful thinking want homosexuality to be equalised with those.

* If the homophobe is religious, his holy book has probably already placed homosexual acts in the same dominion as pedophiliac acts and beastiality. So all of them are crimes, thus in the same dominion of his religion. This could also explain why some religious homophobes unjustly compare homosexual acts with things like murder.

Naturally, some pro-LGBT could do some flawed logics while defending homosexuals, like giving "It is love" as the only premise. That alone would justify pedophiliac acts as well. But these advocaters almost always mean "love between two consensual people", and they adjust the goalposts to this if one asks them further. So they just reduce it to "It is love" out of laziness I guess.

So, what do you think? Do you have any other theory?

How do you define consent?

To the law, consenting to sexual acts means that you are out of enough maturity, intelligence and rationality that you could understand about what you are doing. Of course consenting to sex, contracts and bank loans could be understood fully of non-adults, but puberty leaves teenagers impulsive and thus open for being deceived. So even if there somewhere would be an intelligent teenage mastermind who could be counted as having the intelligence and knowledge of a 40 year old, there is still this law to protect the vast majority which aren't, in order to not render them vulnerable. And the law would of course also include said mastermind.

People who aren't adult could still be legally allowed to have sex, but this with other teenagers, and not with adults. There are complimentary laws in many countries which say that a 15 year old for example is allowed to have sex with a 17 year old, but not with a 19 year old. This is of course very good.

Why do you need "maturity, intelligence, and rationality" to have sex?

To understand about how it is an act whereas the most holy faculties of a humans body are being used. Thus, people need to learn about how to not abuse anyone with this, and also to prevent themselves from being abused, in order to not becoming mentally harmed. Also to not spread STDs, involuntarily make oneself a parent etc.

Most holy faculties?

Most people would say this, and most people would feel very mentally harmed of having them abused. But meh, why would they be very holy for people? All these people who have been raped/molested and got PTSD, depression, anxiety, life crisis, suicidal thoughts and even performed suicide, now why did they get this?

You almost sound religious now.

Your concession is noted.

Having sex while drunk isn't illegal;

No. But for a totally sober one to have sex with someone who has chucked 15 beers is problematic, since this mashed person while inintoxicated could be easy to deceive to do something he or she will repent afterwards.

Two mashed people together however, I do not know. If they are both equally not able to abuse the other one out of power, it would be a consensual concern I guess. There must be very many similar cases where one of them reported the other one for rape though. I don't know what jurisprudence would say about that.

likewise, should a 30 year old man with Down Syndrome be barred from ever having sex?

Nope. It would be totally fine for him to do it with another one of same intelligence. For someone without a disorder to have sex with this man however is very problematic, also here, one here is easy to deceive.

Animals are pretty stupid; should we keep them from having sex with each other?

Why in the world would conduct between humans, who have a totally different brain and emotional world, be implemented on animals? Have you heard of anyone who is willing to take a full time job in sitting in a chair in the middle of the Nevada Desert only to make coyotes be nice to each other?

So you're saying if you're stupid you should only be allowed to have sex with someone who's equally stupid so that you aren't taken advantage of?

How do you define stupid? Unable to get nothing but F in high school mathematics, or having a disabled brain?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:35:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:32:40 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:19:06 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:58:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:48:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:00:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 12:04:45 PM, Jovian wrote:
This comparison will probably never cease to be made. When people say they can't see anything wrong with two adult consenting same-chromosomed people loving each other (homosexual relationships), or even marrying each other (gay marriage), they sometimes receive the question if said people also see no problems in people marrying their children or their pets.

We who are pro-LGBT have all been in that case, when we explain the critical difference between homosexuality and beastiality/pedophilia, the ability of CONSENT. Which can't happen in pedophiliac or beastial sex. Then what do some of them reply? You know it. "You're wrong. Children and animal could consent.", for later referring to how children and animals could be deceived to consent.

But. It's quite a big difference on consenting after being deceived and consenting on legal grounds. The latter one means that you are of rational senses and adult intelligence and experience, and thus could understand the risks about sexual acts. Naturally, many people who are even adult would fall out of this law, such as people with mental disorders like Down's syndrome.

If these "But children and animals actually could consent!" also would see no problem in labelling animals and children able to legally consent, why don't they go all the way? Why don't they call for children and animals getting the rights to do things like signing contracts and apply for bank loans? That wouldn't be any problem if children and animals allegedly could understand fully about sex. In these peoples' logics, even people under the influence of bath salts and deeply senile 100-year olds would be totally able to sign a contract while fully understanding its meaning and consequences.

So why do they still make this comparision? Pedophiliac and beastial acts have victims, a homosexual act is able to do on the same grounds as on a heterosexual act, out of two consenting adults, thus, no victim. Here are some theories I have of why they do this comparison:

* Since beastiality and pedophiliac acts is among the most hated things by humanity, these homophobes do out of wishful thinking want homosexuality to be equalised with those.

* If the homophobe is religious, his holy book has probably already placed homosexual acts in the same dominion as pedophiliac acts and beastiality. So all of them are crimes, thus in the same dominion of his religion. This could also explain why some religious homophobes unjustly compare homosexual acts with things like murder.

Naturally, some pro-LGBT could do some flawed logics while defending homosexuals, like giving "It is love" as the only premise. That alone would justify pedophiliac acts as well. But these advocaters almost always mean "love between two consensual people", and they adjust the goalposts to this if one asks them further. So they just reduce it to "It is love" out of laziness I guess.

So, what do you think? Do you have any other theory?

How do you define consent?

To the law, consenting to sexual acts means that you are out of enough maturity, intelligence and rationality that you could understand about what you are doing. Of course consenting to sex, contracts and bank loans could be understood fully of non-adults, but puberty leaves teenagers impulsive and thus open for being deceived. So even if there somewhere would be an intelligent teenage mastermind who could be counted as having the intelligence and knowledge of a 40 year old, there is still this law to protect the vast majority which aren't, in order to not render them vulnerable. And the law would of course also include said mastermind.

People who aren't adult could still be legally allowed to have sex, but this with other teenagers, and not with adults. There are complimentary laws in many countries which say that a 15 year old for example is allowed to have sex with a 17 year old, but not with a 19 year old. This is of course very good.

Why do you need "maturity, intelligence, and rationality" to have sex?

To understand about how it is an act whereas the most holy faculties of a humans body are being used. Thus, people need to learn about how to not abuse anyone with this, and also to prevent themselves from being abused, in order to not becoming mentally harmed. Also to not spread STDs, involuntarily make oneself a parent etc.

Most holy faculties?

Most people would say this, and most people would feel very mentally harmed of having them abused. But meh, why would they be very holy for people? All these people who have been raped/molested and got PTSD, depression, anxiety, life crisis, suicidal thoughts and even performed suicide, now why did they get this?

You almost sound religious now.

Your concession is noted.

Having sex while drunk isn't illegal;

No. But for a totally sober one to have sex with someone who has chucked 15 beers is problematic, since this mashed person while inintoxicated could be easy to deceive to do something he or she will repent afterwards.

Two mashed people together however, I do not know. If they are both equally not able to abuse the other one out of power, it would be a consensual concern I guess. There must be very many similar cases where one of them reported the other one for rape though. I don't know what jurisprudence would say about that.

likewise, should a 30 year old man with Down Syndrome be barred from ever having sex?

Nope. It would be totally fine for him to do it with another one of same intelligence. For someone without a disorder to have sex with this man however is very problematic, also here, one here is easy to deceive.

Animals are pretty stupid; should we keep them from having sex with each other?

Why in the world would conduct between humans, who have a totally different brain and emotional world, be implemented on animals? Have you heard of anyone who is willing to take a full time job in sitting in a chair in the middle of the Nevada Desert only to make coyotes be nice to each other?

So you're saying if you're stupid you should only be allowed to have sex with someone who's equally stupid so that you aren't taken advantage of?

How do you define stupid? Unable to get nothing but F in high school mathematics, or having a disabled brain?

Having lower brain functions than the average adult human.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:39:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:35:16 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:32:40 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:24:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:19:06 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:58:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:48:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:00:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/2/2016 12:04:45 PM, Jovian wrote:
This comparison will probably never cease to be made. When people say they can't see anything wrong with two adult consenting same-chromosomed people loving each other (homosexual relationships), or even marrying each other (gay marriage), they sometimes receive the question if said people also see no problems in people marrying their children or their pets.

We who are pro-LGBT have all been in that case, when we explain the critical difference between homosexuality and beastiality/pedophilia, the ability of CONSENT. Which can't happen in pedophiliac or beastial sex. Then what do some of them reply? You know it. "You're wrong. Children and animal could consent.", for later referring to how children and animals could be deceived to consent.

But. It's quite a big difference on consenting after being deceived and consenting on legal grounds. The latter one means that you are of rational senses and adult intelligence and experience, and thus could understand the risks about sexual acts. Naturally, many people who are even adult would fall out of this law, such as people with mental disorders like Down's syndrome.

If these "But children and animals actually could consent!" also would see no problem in labelling animals and children able to legally consent, why don't they go all the way? Why don't they call for children and animals getting the rights to do things like signing contracts and apply for bank loans? That wouldn't be any problem if children and animals allegedly could understand fully about sex. In these peoples' logics, even people under the influence of bath salts and deeply senile 100-year olds would be totally able to sign a contract while fully understanding its meaning and consequences.

So why do they still make this comparision? Pedophiliac and beastial acts have victims, a homosexual act is able to do on the same grounds as on a heterosexual act, out of two consenting adults, thus, no victim. Here are some theories I have of why they do this comparison:

* Since beastiality and pedophiliac acts is among the most hated things by humanity, these homophobes do out of wishful thinking want homosexuality to be equalised with those.

* If the homophobe is religious, his holy book has probably already placed homosexual acts in the same dominion as pedophiliac acts and beastiality. So all of them are crimes, thus in the same dominion of his religion. This could also explain why some religious homophobes unjustly compare homosexual acts with things like murder.

Naturally, some pro-LGBT could do some flawed logics while defending homosexuals, like giving "It is love" as the only premise. That alone would justify pedophiliac acts as well. But these advocaters almost always mean "love between two consensual people", and they adjust the goalposts to this if one asks them further. So they just reduce it to "It is love" out of laziness I guess.

So, what do you think? Do you have any other theory?

How do you define consent?

To the law, consenting to sexual acts means that you are out of enough maturity, intelligence and rationality that you could understand about what you are doing. Of course consenting to sex, contracts and bank loans could be understood fully of non-adults, but puberty leaves teenagers impulsive and thus open for being deceived. So even if there somewhere would be an intelligent teenage mastermind who could be counted as having the intelligence and knowledge of a 40 year old, there is still this law to protect the vast majority which aren't, in order to not render them vulnerable. And the law would of course also include said mastermind.

People who aren't adult could still be legally allowed to have sex, but this with other teenagers, and not with adults. There are complimentary laws in many countries which say that a 15 year old for example is allowed to have sex with a 17 year old, but not with a 19 year old. This is of course very good.

Why do you need "maturity, intelligence, and rationality" to have sex?

To understand about how it is an act whereas the most holy faculties of a humans body are being used. Thus, people need to learn about how to not abuse anyone with this, and also to prevent themselves from being abused, in order to not becoming mentally harmed. Also to not spread STDs, involuntarily make oneself a parent etc.

Most holy faculties?

Most people would say this, and most people would feel very mentally harmed of having them abused. But meh, why would they be very holy for people? All these people who have been raped/molested and got PTSD, depression, anxiety, life crisis, suicidal thoughts and even performed suicide, now why did they get this?

You almost sound religious now.

Your concession is noted.

Having sex while drunk isn't illegal;

No. But for a totally sober one to have sex with someone who has chucked 15 beers is problematic, since this mashed person while inintoxicated could be easy to deceive to do something he or she will repent afterwards.

Two mashed people together however, I do not know. If they are both equally not able to abuse the other one out of power, it would be a consensual concern I guess. There must be very many similar cases where one of them reported the other one for rape though. I don't know what jurisprudence would say about that.

likewise, should a 30 year old man with Down Syndrome be barred from ever having sex?

Nope. It would be totally fine for him to do it with another one of same intelligence. For someone without a disorder to have sex with this man however is very problematic, also here, one here is easy to deceive.

Animals are pretty stupid; should we keep them from having sex with each other?

Why in the world would conduct between humans, who have a totally different brain and emotional world, be implemented on animals? Have you heard of anyone who is willing to take a full time job in sitting in a chair in the middle of the Nevada Desert only to make coyotes be nice to each other?

So you're saying if you're stupid you should only be allowed to have sex with someone who's equally stupid so that you aren't taken advantage of?

How do you define stupid? Unable to get nothing but F in high school mathematics, or having a disabled brain?

Having lower brain functions than the average adult human.

Thus being disordered? I've made very logical point about the Down case. I don't know about cases like people with a mild Asperger. I'm not a expert on psychological disorders, so I can't tell. There I however a very good thumb rule about consent. If you're not entirely sure he or she could consent, don't do it.
coal
Posts: 104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 5:22:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I don't think that anyone in mainstream society considers the comparison between homosexuality and beastiality or pedophilia to be a valid or reasonable one. There are some people who do, and they're not the majority by any measure. Discussions like this, therefore, don't really seem like ones that are worth having.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 5:24:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
The nature of Pedo/homo and bestiality infers a predatory one. That is the long and short of it, the potential for personal gratification stemming from the abuse of power over some one else. Its assumed pretty much any adult has some variety of authority over a child, and pets/livestock are already considered a property.

We have scads of laws on the books about predatory contracts and relationships in which the supplicant or more appropriately, 'victim', is given legal recourse for compensation, however sexual abuse varies in as much as a dollar figure cannot be placed on it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 5:33:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 5:22:40 PM, coal wrote:
I don't think that anyone in mainstream society considers the comparison between homosexuality and beastiality or pedophilia to be a valid or reasonable one. There are some people who do, and they're not the majority by any measure. Discussions like this, therefore, don't really seem like ones that are worth having.

Ask any religious conservative and they will in at least 1/4 of all cases do this comparison, or do a slippery slope fallacy saying gay marriage will lead to child marriage and animal marriage. Just go to the Religion section and say you're pro-LGBT and you will at least have someone who will ask you why you don't also support pedophiliac acts and beastiality. So no, this red herring of yours is incorrect.

And if they don't equalise it to pedophiliac acts or beastiality, they could do other flawed comparisons. Like equalising it to anorexia, slitting ones wrists or even murdering. All of these have even been done on this community.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 5:36:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 5:24:53 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
The nature of Pedo/homo and bestiality infers a predatory one. That is the long and short of it, the potential for personal gratification stemming from the abuse of power over some one else. Its assumed pretty much any adult has some variety of authority over a child, and pets/livestock are already considered a property.

Now you're sounding like abusive adult heterosexual relationships never have occurred.

We have scads of laws on the books about predatory contracts and relationships in which the supplicant or more appropriately, 'victim', is given legal recourse for compensation, however sexual abuse varies in as much as a dollar figure cannot be placed on it.
coal
Posts: 104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 5:38:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 5:33:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 5:22:40 PM, coal wrote:
I don't think that anyone in mainstream society considers the comparison between homosexuality and beastiality or pedophilia to be a valid or reasonable one. There are some people who do, and they're not the majority by any measure. Discussions like this, therefore, don't really seem like ones that are worth having.

Ask any religious conservative and they will in at least 1/4 of all cases do this comparison, or do a slippery slope fallacy saying gay marriage will lead to child marriage and animal marriage.

I know plenty of religious and conservative people, and none of them would make that comparison.

Just go to the Religion section and say you're pro-LGBT and you will at least have someone who will ask you why you don't also support pedophiliac acts and beastiality.

I've seen the religion forums here. It seems to me that they're mainly populated by overly-opinionated people who have very little to say. That doesn't interest me. Sorry.

So no, this red herring of yours is incorrect.

Someone should really do like an intro to logical fallacies here. What I wrote was not a red herring to anything.

And if they don't equalise

The word is equivocate. That's the word you're looking for.

it to pedophiliac acts or beastiality, they could do other flawed comparisons. Like equalising it to anorexia, slitting ones wrists or even murdering. All of these have even been done on this community.

Yes, and this is a strange community, but like I said, mainstream people don't make that comparison.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 5:47:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 5:38:03 PM, coal wrote:
At 4/2/2016 5:33:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 5:22:40 PM, coal wrote:
I don't think that anyone in mainstream society considers the comparison between homosexuality and beastiality or pedophilia to be a valid or reasonable one. There are some people who do, and they're not the majority by any measure. Discussions like this, therefore, don't really seem like ones that are worth having.

Ask any religious conservative and they will in at least 1/4 of all cases do this comparison, or do a slippery slope fallacy saying gay marriage will lead to child marriage and animal marriage.

I know plenty of religious and conservative people, and none of them would make that comparison.

That is as much anecdotal evidence as my anecdote. I haven't seen a single forum thread about this discussion on any forum without this comparison. And even if not a majority would do this comparison, it doesn't matter, any unjust comparison shouldn't be made, let alone an unjust comparison to denigrate groups with a history of oppression.

Just go to the Religion section and say you're pro-LGBT and you will at least have someone who will ask you why you don't also support pedophiliac acts and beastiality.

I've seen the religion forums here. It seems to me that they're mainly populated by overly-opinionated people who have very little to say. That doesn't interest me. Sorry.

So no, this red herring of yours is incorrect.

Someone should really do like an intro to logical fallacies here. What I wrote was not a red herring to anything.

Isn't a red herring anything written in order to end a discussion?

And if they don't equalise

The word is equivocate. That's the word you're looking for.

Thank you. English is not my first language.

it to pedophiliac acts or beastiality, they could do other flawed comparisons. Like equalising it to anorexia, slitting ones wrists or even murdering. All of these have even been done on this community.

Yes, and this is a strange community, but like I said, mainstream people don't make that comparison

See above. And compared to other online communities, this one is by far more mature than others, from what I've seen.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 5:49:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 5:36:33 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 5:24:53 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
The nature of Pedo/homo and bestiality infers a predatory one. That is the long and short of it, the potential for personal gratification stemming from the abuse of power over some one else. Its assumed pretty much any adult has some variety of authority over a child, and pets/livestock are already considered a property.

Now you're sounding like abusive adult heterosexual relationships never have occurred.

I am not certain how one would classify pedophilial relationships of both hetero and homosexual natures. "Homopedophilial"? "Heteropedophilial"? The point was to express a pedophilial sexual relationship of any variety. Of course such adult relationships occur, but outside of calling it an abusive relationship from the onset, a predatory nature is not inferred.

We have scads of laws on the books about predatory contracts and relationships in which the supplicant or more appropriately, 'victim', is given legal recourse for compensation, however sexual abuse varies in as much as a dollar figure cannot be placed on it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
coal
Posts: 104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 5:52:17 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 5:47:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 5:38:03 PM, coal wrote:
At 4/2/2016 5:33:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 5:22:40 PM, coal wrote:
I don't think that anyone in mainstream society considers the comparison between homosexuality and beastiality or pedophilia to be a valid or reasonable one. There are some people who do, and they're not the majority by any measure. Discussions like this, therefore, don't really seem like ones that are worth having.

Ask any religious conservative and they will in at least 1/4 of all cases do this comparison, or do a slippery slope fallacy saying gay marriage will lead to child marriage and animal marriage.

I know plenty of religious and conservative people, and none of them would make that comparison.

That is as much anecdotal evidence as my anecdote. I haven't seen a single forum thread about this discussion on any forum without this comparison. And even if not a majority would do this comparison, it doesn't matter, any unjust comparison shouldn't be made, let alone an unjust comparison to denigrate groups with a history of oppression.

I don't really see what your point was there.

Just go to the Religion section and say you're pro-LGBT and you will at least have someone who will ask you why you don't also support pedophiliac acts and beastiality.

I've seen the religion forums here. It seems to me that they're mainly populated by overly-opinionated people who have very little to say. That doesn't interest me. Sorry.

So no, this red herring of yours is incorrect.

Someone should really do like an intro to logical fallacies here. What I wrote was not a red herring to anything.

Isn't a red herring anything written in order to end a discussion?

No.

And if they don't equalise

The word is equivocate. That's the word you're looking for.

Thank you. English is not my first language.

What is your first language?

it to pedophiliac acts or beastiality, they could do other flawed comparisons. Like equalising it to anorexia, slitting ones wrists or even murdering. All of these have even been done on this community.

Yes, and this is a strange community, but like I said, mainstream people don't make that comparison

See above. And compared to other online communities, this one is by far more mature than others, from what I've seen.

I disagree. I've been on other forum communities and this one seems to be populated mostly by kids, unlike others, which seem to be populated mostly by adults.

The religion forum, from what I can tell, is the exception because it's populated mostly by adults, although the adults there behave like children.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 6:12:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 12:04:45 PM, Jovian wrote:
This comparison will probably never cease to be made. When people say they can't see anything wrong with two adult consenting same-chromosomed people loving each other (homosexual relationships), or even marrying each other (gay marriage), they sometimes receive the question if said people also see no problems in people marrying their children or their pets.

We who are pro-LGBT have all been in that case, when we explain the critical difference between homosexuality and beastiality/pedophilia, the ability of CONSENT. Which can't happen in pedophiliac or beastial sex. Then what do some of them reply? You know it. "You're wrong. Children and animal could consent.", for later referring to how children and animals could be deceived to consent.

But. It's quite a big difference on consenting after being deceived and consenting on legal grounds. The latter one means that you are of rational senses and adult intelligence and experience, and thus could understand the risks about sexual acts. Naturally, many people who are even adult would fall out of this law, such as people with mental disorders like Down's syndrome.

If these "But children and animals actually could consent!" also would see no problem in labelling animals and children able to legally consent, why don't they go all the way? Why don't they call for children and animals getting the rights to do things like signing contracts and apply for bank loans? That wouldn't be any problem if children and animals allegedly could understand fully about sex. In these peoples' logics, even people under the influence of bath salts and deeply senile 100-year olds would be totally able to sign a contract while fully understanding its meaning and consequences.

So why do they still make this comparision? Pedophiliac and beastial acts have victims, a homosexual act is able to do on the same grounds as on a heterosexual act, out of two consenting adults, thus, no victim. Here are some theories I have of why they do this comparison:

* Since beastiality and pedophiliac acts is among the most hated things by humanity, these homophobes do out of wishful thinking want homosexuality to be equalised with those.

* If the homophobe is religious, his holy book has probably already placed homosexual acts in the same dominion as pedophiliac acts and beastiality. So all of them are crimes, thus in the same dominion of his religion. This could also explain why some religious homophobes unjustly compare homosexual acts with things like murder.

Naturally, some pro-LGBT could do some flawed logics while defending homosexuals, like giving "It is love" as the only premise. That alone would justify pedophiliac acts as well. But these advocaters almost always mean "love between two consensual people", and they adjust the goalposts to this if one asks them further. So they just reduce it to "It is love" out of laziness I guess.

So, what do you think? Do you have any other theory?

If I may, are you referring to people who also condemn things like protected sex? It would make sense for them to group all three together if sex was considered something more important than pleasure to them, and bore some sort of sentiment or higher purpose.

Most people consider sex to be pleasure with the side effect of numerous things, but if you now weigh those other things over pleasure you can start to see how one might require sex to include certain things in addition to being consensual. If a homosexual relationship can't provide those things, then.....

That doesn't necessarily make the person homophobic, and if they were homophobic, that doesn't necessarily mean they are against homosexuality. There is a distinct difference between wanting nothing to do with homosexuals, and wanting there to be no homosexuality.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 7:06:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 6:12:44 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 4/2/2016 12:04:45 PM, Jovian wrote:
This comparison will probably never cease to be made. When people say they can't see anything wrong with two adult consenting same-chromosomed people loving each other (homosexual relationships), or even marrying each other (gay marriage), they sometimes receive the question if said people also see no problems in people marrying their children or their pets.

We who are pro-LGBT have all been in that case, when we explain the critical difference between homosexuality and beastiality/pedophilia, the ability of CONSENT. Which can't happen in pedophiliac or beastial sex. Then what do some of them reply? You know it. "You're wrong. Children and animal could consent.", for later referring to how children and animals could be deceived to consent.

But. It's quite a big difference on consenting after being deceived and consenting on legal grounds. The latter one means that you are of rational senses and adult intelligence and experience, and thus could understand the risks about sexual acts. Naturally, many people who are even adult would fall out of this law, such as people with mental disorders like Down's syndrome.

If these "But children and animals actually could consent!" also would see no problem in labelling animals and children able to legally consent, why don't they go all the way? Why don't they call for children and animals getting the rights to do things like signing contracts and apply for bank loans? That wouldn't be any problem if children and animals allegedly could understand fully about sex. In these peoples' logics, even people under the influence of bath salts and deeply senile 100-year olds would be totally able to sign a contract while fully understanding its meaning and consequences.

So why do they still make this comparision? Pedophiliac and beastial acts have victims, a homosexual act is able to do on the same grounds as on a heterosexual act, out of two consenting adults, thus, no victim. Here are some theories I have of why they do this comparison:

* Since beastiality and pedophiliac acts is among the most hated things by humanity, these homophobes do out of wishful thinking want homosexuality to be equalised with those.

* If the homophobe is religious, his holy book has probably already placed homosexual acts in the same dominion as pedophiliac acts and beastiality. So all of them are crimes, thus in the same dominion of his religion. This could also explain why some religious homophobes unjustly compare homosexual acts with things like murder.

Naturally, some pro-LGBT could do some flawed logics while defending homosexuals, like giving "It is love" as the only premise. That alone would justify pedophiliac acts as well. But these advocaters almost always mean "love between two consensual people", and they adjust the goalposts to this if one asks them further. So they just reduce it to "It is love" out of laziness I guess.

So, what do you think? Do you have any other theory?

If I may, are you referring to people who also condemn things like protected sex? It would make sense for them to group all three together if sex was considered something more important than pleasure to them, and bore some sort of sentiment or higher purpose.

Most people consider sex to be pleasure with the side effect of numerous things, but if you now weigh those other things over pleasure you can start to see how one might require sex to include certain things in addition to being consensual. If a homosexual relationship can't provide those things, then.....

The only thing it can't provide is child making. But,

1. You are not obliged to have children.
2. Those who use the "we must reproduce" argument against homosexuality are quite hypocritical since I never see them condemn heterosexual couples who see no point in having children.
3. Another way they are hypocritical in is that they never condemn heterosexual sex willfully performed outside of the woman's fertile window. If sex should result in new life, then people should always do it when the woman ovulates.

That doesn't necessarily make the person homophobic, and if they were homophobic, that doesn't necessarily mean they are against homosexuality. There is a distinct difference between wanting nothing to do with homosexuals, and wanting there to be no homosexuality.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 8:42:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 5:52:17 PM, coal wrote:
At 4/2/2016 5:47:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 5:38:03 PM, coal wrote:
At 4/2/2016 5:33:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/2/2016 5:22:40 PM, coal wrote:
I don't think that anyone in mainstream society considers the comparison between homosexuality and beastiality or pedophilia to be a valid or reasonable one. There are some people who do, and they're not the majority by any measure. Discussions like this, therefore, don't really seem like ones that are worth having.

Ask any religious conservative and they will in at least 1/4 of all cases do this comparison, or do a slippery slope fallacy saying gay marriage will lead to child marriage and animal marriage.

I know plenty of religious and conservative people, and none of them would make that comparison.

That is as much anecdotal evidence as my anecdote. I haven't seen a single forum thread about this discussion on any forum without this comparison. And even if not a majority would do this comparison, it doesn't matter, any unjust comparison shouldn't be made, let alone an unjust comparison to denigrate groups with a history of oppression.

I don't really see what your point was there.

That no discussion should be ended, especially not this one, since it's aboit equivocating innocent and historically oppressed people with criminality.

Just go to the Religion section and say you're pro-LGBT and you will at least have someone who will ask you why you don't also support pedophiliac acts and beastiality.

I've seen the religion forums here. It seems to me that they're mainly populated by overly-opinionated people who have very little to say. That doesn't interest me. Sorry.

So no, this red herring of yours is incorrect.

Someone should really do like an intro to logical fallacies here. What I wrote was not a red herring to anything.

Isn't a red herring anything written in order to end a discussion?

No.

What is your interpretation of it then?

And if they don't equalise

The word is equivocate. That's the word you're looking for.

Thank you. English is not my first language.

What is your first language?

Dutch.

it to pedophiliac acts or beastiality, they could do other flawed comparisons. Like equalising it to anorexia, slitting ones wrists or even murdering. All of these have even been done on this community.

Yes, and this is a strange community, but like I said, mainstream people don't make that comparison

See above. And compared to other online communities, this one is by far more mature than others, from what I've seen.

I disagree. I've been on other forum communities and this one seems to be populated mostly by kids, unlike others, which seem to be populated mostly by adults.

The religion forum, from what I can tell, is the exception because it's populated mostly by adults, although the adults there behave like children.

What communities are better then?
SocialJusticeWarrior
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 10:08:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
The comparison is irrelevant despite what bigoted right winged cis white straight males say because there's no consent with pedophilia and beastiality. But two adult men or two adult women CAN consent to each other.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 8:19:52 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
People keep making the comparison because people want to normalize beastiality/pedophilia and comparing it to say people is the easiest way to do that. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the person making the comparison has some latent beastiality/pedophilia desire that they want to normalize as well. There is no real comparison.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 5:27:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 10:08:26 PM, SocialJusticeWarrior wrote:
The comparison is irrelevant despite what bigoted right winged cis white straight males say because there's no consent with pedophilia and beastiality. But two adult men or two adult women CAN consent to each other.

Do you think the strong nature of your wording, in the absence of neutrally toned explanation would slow the progress of the movement to create sexual equality through defensive reaction based on emotion?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.