Riahlize's Waterfall
What I believe is the exact same oversimplified arguments homosexuals use to justify their behavior can be used by a lot of other groups
Including heterosexuals.
we all agree are immoral.
We don't all agree it's immoral.
A victory for homosexuality is an indirect victory for feminism,
That's not even a sexual identity....
transsexuals,
Possible.
bestiality,
Nope.
polygamy,
Possible.
pedophilia,
Nope.
and perverts of every kind.
And nope.
Do you support neutering and spaying because they can't give consent to that but we do it anyway
I support the owner in legally neutering or spaying their animals. It does not require consent in a court of law to do so. Where as, if the issues were to arise about rape or consensual sex between humans and animals, that cannot be established in a court of law.
but let me guss you will say there is a difference because "neutering is not as bad as rape"
No actually, it's not as bad, but that is definitely not my reason. Don't get me wrong, I don't like neutering, but I realize if I want to have animals and they have territorial issues, I just might have to.
so before you say that
Yeah I wasn't going to.
there are still both wrong and until you take action at banning neutering and spaying
Way to convince me. They're wrong, so believe it.
your just a hypocritical.
Again, I didn't argue for that reason, you assumed. But even if I did, it's not hypocritical.
And anyway animals can give consent
Prove it.
and your are getting yourself into a argument that you don't even know much about like I do.
Certainly doesn't sound like you do.
Isn't it a little hypocritical to support homosexuality but not bestiality...
Nope. Not even in the slightest.
As he says his partners consent just like gay partners? Why are you judging his lifestyle, he isn't hurting anyone.
His desired partners, being non-human animals, cannot give consent. Hypothetically, let's pretend that objectively, the non-human animals wants to consent to sex. Humans have no way of verifying this. They are not able to tell us whether or not they give consent. Consensual sex is all about ethical law and non-human animals cannot contribute to that.
Not a whole lot
Aside from the person arguing for Zoophilia being an orientation, does it have anything to do same-sex couples being allowed to adopt?
except they are using the exact same argument as homosexuals to de-criminalize their actions. Goodmale has even gone so far as to tell me it is an "orientation
And I certainly will not support Goodmale's argument on it, he is in the wrong and I could refute his arguments if necessary. I absolutely disagree with his opinion on the subject.
With that said, is there is another reason?
Marriage in not inherently "hard". It's the decisions that you make that would cause it to be harder or easier.
Incorrect. The concept of marriage is not naturally hard.... until it's applied to humans. Life events that come from various sources, people from various sources, decisions and opinions from two different minds who have agreed to share one path; that makes marriage inherently "hard". And perhaps that's not the right word, it's worthy hard work. Worthy effort. I have only objected to the term due to it's implications that hard = hard work/effort and easy = effortlessness/not having to try.
I have seen plenty of marriages between friends of mine who thought marriage was "easy" (used synonymously for effortless as previously stated). Two human beings (and think about the sheer nature of a human and all of it's dramas, opinions, emotions, mistakes and bonds) who agree to share one path together. No, it's not going to be an easy road, but it shouldn't be so difficult that you are unhappy and you do not find it worth it. And that is the key.
Things don't just fall into place when married. It's not effortless.
The BOND between a married couple is(or should) be easy. But marriage is not, marriage is work. You have to put in effort to keep your bond, and to be legally binding to one path. Marriage is hard, but it should be hard work that you're happy to work for and worth it.
I don't like polygamy, but I don't have a valid reason to keep it illegal that also isn't found in monogamous marriage issues; aside from polygamy making it easier for those issues to rise.
I would like to point out just as a side note that I've also noticed a lot of people think bisexuality has to come with polyamory, bisexuality does not define whether one is monogamous or otherwise, neither do any of the other sexual orientations.
I sort have just learned not to take any argument or debate you post seriously. >_>
But I almost always will swallow hook, line and sinker for religion debates, it's my thing, I love to debate it.
Also, CONGRATULATIONS on your point achievement, you deserve it Joe! =D
Non-religious people have also been married and are currently married, and in the future will be married.
So... I would have to say... uh, yeah, if same-sex marriage would be legalized, any same-sex couple who goes through the same process would also be married.
That his highly unlogical
When accepting something as "extraordinary" as a deity and comparing all the different deities believed to exist, it is certainly logical to find it possible that the deity could have only created the concept of atheism for humans. Deities have all sorts of limitations or described as the epitome of a concept.
that statement you have established nothing,
I've established that your argument presupposes a specific deity which created humans without having stated so. God therefore humans is not a valid argument, even hypothetically.
him having an unlimited amount of powers means that it could be a probability that you yourself isn't typing right now it's him forcing you to do so, and you walking isn't truly you it's him controlling your nervous system.
When was it established here in our debate that this deity is omnipotent? This is actually what I was attempting to get out of you. In your initial argument, your only descriptive of a deity was that one exists; this means everything about this deity is unknown, including what it may have created. UNLESS you set up your hypothetical scenario to include a specific deed or characteristic of this deity, such as creating humans. And THEN you can carry onto your original argument.
Rather disputing my opinion of the question why not answer the question for yourself?
Because the option to dispute your argument is available and I have an objection to your argument, therefore I'm going to use the option to dispute your argument.....?.... I am not obligated to actually answer the debate question if I do not want to, I have the option to support, dispute, clarify or report an individual or multiple arguments in a debate as well as respond to the actual debate itself. Why, is this a problem for you?
So riahlize, Did god create atheists?
That depends on the hypothetical god we may be discussing. Any deity that is believed to have created everything in existence, certainly would have to have created atheists, otherwise "everything" doesn't really apply.
A deity could have created the atheism and slip it into the minds of humans (and/or force their mind to be atheist) without having to create humans.
For a hypothetical scenario when assuming an extraordinary claim, all extraordinary claims that can be logically associated with it are also up in the air.
This is why I mentioned the assumption you have made.
How do you know this deity created humans? You've already made an assumption, one that the rest of your argument is based on. You have only set up a hypothetical scenario of a deity existing, not what the characteristics, powers and/or limitations of this deity may have or what this deity has done.
Two questions:
1) How big is the file?
2) Does it need an internet connection to successfully install it?
I'm asking because my laptop died, so I can't download it from there. But I have an extra memory card I can put in my phone to download and save if it's under 4GB. And install it when I get a new laptop.
