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.
Guys stand up, and the pee just goes everywhere, including on the seat.
What guys do you live with?... Because my husband does not seem to have this urinating on the toilet issue. Aren't boys trained to hit their target in the toilet bowl?
Maybe I'm just not realizing that this is common and my husband may be an exception?
By default (from what people are arguing) it shouldn't be expected that the male conforms to that of the female's preferences on toilets. Each household should come to their own agreement on this issue. Though I'd argue that the default position of the toilet is with the seat down, so perhaps that sways it a bit?
We have the toilet seat and lid down whenever it's not in use because our two cats will jump up and fall in.
That's pretty much one of the first rules any economics professor will teach. The more governmental restrictions on a business, the less overall efficiency the company has. When I had an economics class a few years back, he didn't just teach that, he had to prove it to us.
Well I think it was romantic, may have been sappy (I wasn't, I was joyous). No symbols of damsels and knights in shining armor. And we got married by a close friend of ours with a "small ceremony" consisting of around 30-40 people. Only close friends and family.
Obviously, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But as a married woman, it honestly gets under my skin when people insult marriage, especially with strawman or non sequitar arguments. I feel like they're attacking my marriage.
I'm mentioning this because I try not to take debates personally, but there are some I do not have the ability to personally detach from, like this one.
Marriage and it's wedding ceremony does not require lots of money spending, high cost ceremonies, lawyers, judges, extravagant decorations, bridezillas, greed, outdated concepts, etc.
When you see this happening, there is something wrong with the people, not marriage.
A wedding should be a celebration with loved ones for the decision to spend the rest of your life with someone you romantically love.
Having a legal marriage (registered as a married couple by the government) simply gives you the ability TO be recognized as more than one person acting in one life pathway and adjusting their rights to accommodate. Like for instance, the right to see your spouse in the hospital (to be considered family). The right to make decisions for your loved one when they. can't. The right to file taxes together as married, which makes sorting for both sides easier.
The rest is up to the person what is added, the expensive ceremony, the symbolism, etc.
Look at the Unites States, 50% divorce rate. Statistically a 50/50 chance a couple will stay together. That's THEIR personal problem and their expectations of a marriage and wedding. A marriage ceremony isn't what does it to them, it's themselves.
From the government?
Marriage seems to bring in more money. :)
Then again, we don't have kids.
Other than that, I regretfully have to agree with the "sexual immorality" bull. To "protect" us from the "wrong people" being married (i.e.: LGBTQ community, and previously interracial marriages!).
I don't need to prove my perception of reality to you.
Sounds like you're cornered and you know it. So you're chickening out and pretending you don't have to prove anything to me.
So that which can be demonstrably proven cannot be perception, and vice versa?
Never argued that.
Everyone would be able to do it. Yet you were the only one to assume the obligation of doing it.
Nope. I did not assume any obligation of it.
You don't act based on what you feel obligated to do?
Again, never argued that. You seem to have a habit of assuming "always" out of my exceptions or discrimination's.
This is what you appear to be.
Prove this is what I appear to be. What of my post makes your claim valid?
What makes perception any less valid in terms of reality then truth that is not perceived?
What you claimed is not of perception or varying by mind, what you have claimed can be demonstrably proven. (Specifically that I am pretending something).
If it wasn't exclusive to you, why were you the only individual to correct the spelling?
Non sequitur. Simply because I am the only one to do something does not automatically conclude I am the only one able to do it.
Obviously no one else felt obligated to do it.
I didn't feel obligated to do it either.
Obviously no one else felt obligated to do it.
Says you
Says logic. You make a claim and enforce it, you prove it.
Stop pretending to be a self-righteous good Samaritan. Your screams of martyrdom have little effect.
Prove I am these things you claim.
So you decided it was your prerogative to correct this hypothetical someone?
Not my prerogative, that implies it was exclusive to me. Which it's not. I merely noticed his consistent misspelling of the word and was on the site to debate some posts, and decided why not give a little friendly tip.
Generally common sense requires no evidence.
Unless it's about claim you are going to enforce on a stranger over the internet that directly claims something about that stranger to be true. Then it becomes "yes, that may be generally a rule, but if you're going to assume it of someone, you gotta prove it".
You're new so you probably don't know any better, but correcting the spelling of someone usually isn't necessary or called for.
I notice the word usually. And I do not believe it was necessary or called for. However it was something I decided to do as a friendly tip. Friendly isn't always necessary or called for.
If someone cares about their spelling of a word, they would use the given spell check option.
That is not always applicable on a browser, so if someone thought they were spelling a word correctly and did not have a built in spell checker, they may believe they've been spelling the word correctly.
HOW DID YOU DO THAT? O_O
When I submit a short comment, I get this red text above the "write your argument" text and below "You support this view: _____________ (insert view)":
"The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible."
