- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).|
Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
What I believe is the exact same oversimplified arguments homosexuals use to justify their behavior can be used by a lot of other groups
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....
and perverts of every kind.
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
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?