Nobody is accepting of homosexuality.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
This is like a chapter 2 and an idea taken from another debate topic.
It was mentioned in that description about no one denying heterosexuality according to their anatomical setup and design, namely according to their body.
No person accepts homosexuality. That's absolutely no person as in their body accepts homosexual behavior.
It works the same way with food and medical care. I'll break down the scenarios and analogies as the debate proceeds on.
Now I understand that there's probably confusion already.
What do I mean, nobody accepts it?
What about the law? What about society as a whole, the festivities and celebrations?
Isn't this an indication of acceptance?
I guess it comes down to what's meant by "accept" or "reject".
To be sure you're really paying attention to what you are reading and that you're reading it all, the context has been specified to what the topic is getting at.
Now there could be some fundamental problems as anticipated. If you as a person have a particular belief regarding the nature of sexuality and sex disregarding biology, then it's futile of you understanding this topic altogether.
But in any event, you may learn something dealing with biological blueprint. I would have to say that is a start.
So if you disagree and say that some do accept homosexuality in all aspects 100 percent, batter up,step up to the plate.
For questions and advice , please send a message .
"But even with these sharp divides, views are changing in many of the countries that have been surveyed since 2002, when Pew Research Center first began asking this question. In many nations, there has been an increasing acceptance of homosexuality, including in the United States, where 72% say it should be accepted, compared with just 49% as recently as 2007."
"The GSS, which has been conducted biennially for 40 years, showed a marked increase in support of many civil liberties for gays and lesbians. Support for a gay person's right to speak before a public audience increased from 62 percent in 1972 to 86 percent in 2010; support for allowing gays and lesbians to teach at colleges or universities rose from 48 percent in 1973 to 84 percent in 2010; and approval for having a library keep a book that favors homosexuality rose from 54 percent in 1973 to 78 percent in 2010."
Graphs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 all depict at least a one in percentage for acceptance, though this percentage is higher than one in all instances.
When something is accepted , it can't be rejected
The sexual reproductive organs reject homosexuality or homosexual behavior . This means the organs fail to produce what's in their nature mixing with the wrong environment (homosexuality) . They don't reject an alternate environment as that alternative is able to abide with the success(production) according to the organ's nature.
Once you start with a broad term in that way, you'll be looking for loopholes. Most likely those loops would be illusions and the reality would be the nature of things unchanged. But we could avoid all the confusion and derailing by tightening up the itinerary here
The question is , for who's or what purpose?
As you noticed or should have from the description, I'm speaking based from the body or anatomical figure's p.o.v. but you're switching this to another direction it seems.See if we can silence all else, just let the body itself communicate what it is, what it does. Through observation, it communicates with its shapes, structure, design, etc. The word design has to do with form. It's not necessary to think about the designer or a justification for one. We're just simply looking "at a design". We observe how it works, its function and we can gather information from there.
The body is not a reproduction system. It's an organism that has for one of its organs, a sexual reproductive organ. Distinguishment is very important.
I never made that statement. I never stated what the purpose of sex is. I stated specific terms such as the sexual reproductive organs.
I can't figure what you're trying to say here. You have to prove at least some if not everybody or every*body" accepts or can accept homosexuality. Basically the opposite of what I laid out.
I would ask myself as to why I'm so interested in doing that. Think about all the physiological processes. Absolutely all that comes with it, what it entails.
You agree with me
Right , be careful not to strawman. You shouldn't add words I never mentioned
Don't confuse consent or compliance of a behavior with a function of or within the body that contradicts it.
People as in what? According to their minds, not necessarily their bodies. You agree when you say what's necessary for sexual reproduction. Its those ingredients from which they come from the sexual organs that are not the same. So it's not homosexuality. So what is necessary, it's not that . That has to be rejected and out of the way . That's point 1 you agree with. Those sexual organs don't cease being what they are to produce those ingredients so no other nature is accepted but, point two you agree with.Bottom line, they are what they are.
But a person in their conscious thought or process can ignore that and accept homosexuality on their terms. The body doesn't think, it just functions. Its terms can be pushed aside. This happens with many things, not just sex but with drugs, foods, intoxicities . One of the many reasons we're in poor health is a neglect to the body but full attention to what our minds desire, like and care to indulge in.
You already say I am correct when you mentioned what's necessary for pregnancy. I don't think you realize when you stated that, you confirmed that part of the body accepts no other nature than.Just because you use the term "body", it doesn't mean all of the organs as a whole space and vessel. I say I have cancer in my body . I'm broadly telling you where it's located. The presence of cancer just concerns my body but its exact area is anywhere within depending on the spread. I say I'm bleeding. That means I'm bleeding at least somewhere on my person. See any part of the body is attached to the body. It's a living system. Each part has its own job in a connected system.
I never made an argument about sex so your so called argument for this is void.
Anther pseudo argument as mine was concerning the sexual reproductive organs. Maybe you just don't agree or accept that the word "person" or "persons/people" are equivocal. Regardless, I don't believe you're obtuse and should be well aware by now that the debate topic sets the distinguishment between the mind and body.
Why isn't the sexual reproductive organ that is also attached to the body consistent and lined up with everything else?
I have a mind directing my attention to the *same sex* to utilize my *sexual reproductive organ on* which *no reproduction will work*.It's a sexual reproductive organ . I understand it is not consistent with the role of homosexuality but we can't be confused here.
Here you are indicating the substances that are extracted from their sources connected to the human person or body. No where in there did you agree that the substances are the same. The nature of the same cannot be accepted.That's all I'm saying. You don't have to try to make more of a debate than that for the sake of being right about extraneous things. We can just agree and call it right here.
Prove where I used the terms sexual intercourse. You have proved of yourself adding this language in attempt to manipulate an argument.
Not the debate. You've provided absolutely no explanation of tying homosexuality with sexual reproductive organs. These organs and roles exist. Quit dancing around it and face it. Just come forth and say that science hasn't provided an answer for us yet so you'll feel better here. You're on the hot seat with this question getting burned up.
Why? Did I say the mind and body are not connected? You're an excellent dancer.My question of why the role of the sexual reproductive organs connected to the body don't sync up with the mind connected to the same body is still unanswered. A mind that controls my actions and behaviors to do with an organ that impregnates a being that can't be impregnated, something is not adding up.
So we're back on this again
The source is your eyes which apparently weren't used too much over the description so I had to reiterate in pieces through out this thing. The proof is from observation and you already made the valid point that has been in agreement with me and haven't realized it.The valid point made is secured from observation. Our bodies are the source of information. That's why scientists , biologists, geneticists and doctors study, make reports and hypothesises based on human anatomy. They observe and learn based on its behavior.Our bodies communicate but do you want to listen?
It has been proven to you as you've witnessed or learned this throughout life. Either you're inexperienced or disingenuous.
First off , I don't have to prove what the first sentence is saying. That's your position. People do accept consciously homosexuality for what it is.
The body aside from the head has no thinking capacity. Now if you want proof because you think I'm lying or ignorant that the brain exists no where but in the head, I could insult your intelligence. But I think you know that the brain is what is responsible for mental , congitive faculties and judgment that does not take place in all of the body.
Let's look at food. Terms of the body to sustain is appropriate nourishment. Those terms can be pushed aside with our conscious choice of consuming whatever we like, whatever we wish to indulge in regardless of it being improper for the body's health. Those are different terms my friend. Often times if you are observing, listening to your body, it rejects what's unacceptable by vomiting . Same applies to drugs and liquor.
Does that include the sexual reproductive organs? By you not being specific here again, not realizing something you already said , you can call yourself wrong for taking on this challenge.
Yes sir yes sir.
Keep on talking and talking, the fact that i debunked every argument you even tried to imply speaks volumes about the actual evidence you have for such a view. You have no idea what you're talking about, as I have demonstrated thusly. Fauxlaw and I are as separate as can be, and yet even he agreed with my arguments in this debate. This is not a biased vote.
Funny thing is we both agree. However different we choose to express the agreement. People know the body rejects certain things due to nature, people know the truth . The bias and liberalism run rampant.
Final Round Sources listed:
The debate is over . We agree of the bodily parts not accepting homosexuality due to their conflicting natures. The nature of one substance linking to a different one versus the nature of the same ingredient linking with that one .
I once had a debate on whether my dog was gay or not... too late as an argument in this debate, but I was quite accepting of my gay dog!
First of all, don't bring up debates in comments, that's what the debate is for.
Second of all, I apologize for the forfeit, I was dealing with IRL stuff and didn't have the motivation nor actual care to debate. I do now and you will be getting my rebuttal sometime tomorrow.
I apologize for the inconvenience.
"Anatomically does refer to the mind or is the brain, not a bodily structure?"
Upon doing a google search definition, it states the science of bodily structure especially in dissection. So any part of the body is anatomical. Namely, the point of the sexual reproductive equipment and they do not fit the nature or role other than in the location of heterosexuality.
"My point is, this entire "criticism" is nonsensical, and relying on the Pro's interpretation of "common sense", a term I'm sure the voters are tired of being used to prove something. "
If it's subjective intrepretation, then common sense would be to forget about taking on the debate. If you perceive somebody to be just too much away from reality as you see it, save yourself the trouble.
Do you know what I mean?
"The question is , for who's or what purpose?
Rhetorical, it's used to set up a point I was about to make which you seem to not understand the purpose of. "
Well squash it then or otherwise answer the question. See these questions help you to get specific and to the truth that you evade.
"Exactly, and I have already explained myself in my first round, how the "design" of the mind and of the organs themself don't necessarily reject homosexuality, "
What do you mean by "don't necessarily"?
Are you saying there's no need but still an ability to be done so?
The mind obviously has ability to accept or reject the idea of homosexuality. The body is able to reject smoke as it is a substance forbidden to the lungs .
"No, this is an attempt from Pro to move the goalposts, an informal fallacy which attempts to undermine an argument by not accepting it, even though it has been validated, notice that there is no actual reason for this besides, "its vague and we can use loopholes" what sort of loopholes? Which am I using? '"
You tell me sir or maam. I don't know what you mean by sexuality. I don't know which form of sexuality and under what context.
Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying about loopholes. The more broad and less specific a situation is, the more you can get away with something desirable. Like rules to an organization or club. If a rule, isn't specific enough, a way can be found around the rule to do an act that appears to or could violate the rule but technically legal.
"How is it vague whenever you used "Nobody" in your resolution? "
It's vague upon disregarding the whole debate description. That's why the description is there.
"I would also bring up the fact that there are several pleasure receptors in the brain and reproductive organs, so no, sexual intercourse isn't even just for reproduction, they are also clearly "designed" or at more accurately adapted and evolved in such a way to where pleasure was also a goal"
Sexual intercourse is not the topic. You can throw this out now.
"Therefore even if Mall was correct in the angle that they were looking at this, they would be wrong because the body at least, "partially accepts homosexuality" using his terms."
Of course shifting the purpose of something as in regards to the broad subject of sexuality to just being pleasure. We can fit a lot of things under that umbrella that appear to comply.
But we're dealing with the function , role or use of organs. So that is very specific as it has us look at to why and what the function or role is.
"Sexual organs don't have nature, they have functions. "
Its nature is the function. It's in my nature to see. Seeing is a function or work of my eyes within. All nature is , is that what is within. No finicky business over that. If you feel more comfortable with the word function in the place of nature, go head on. It still has no function for homosexual behavior.
"Are you claiming that the only purpose of the penis and vagina are for sexual reproduction? Because as I have pointed out you can be gay and contribute to that. As a male, you can donate sperm, as a female you can choose to be inseminated. Either way, there is no need for a heterosexual pairing, and it is not mutually exclusive."
I'm making no claims other than to the truth about sexual reproductive organs. You said yourself about what's needed for sexual reproduction. Don't turn around and say there's no pairing going on there.
I've made no reference to sexual intercourse, a man and woman getting together. All you have to stick with is the nature or preferred by you , the function of organs. Which means you're just in more agreement but I understand that you may have accepted this debate too quickly without complete understanding of what was being said and not said. Jumping the gun as they say.
"Yes, people do in fact accept homosexuality:"
People accept meaning by conscious choice. Is that right?
You dismiss this question again, you indirectly concede that I'm right, your wrong.
Let me ask, do you agree that the body rejects things ?
"Incorrect, something can be partially accepted or partially rejected. "
So that part that is accepted is not rejected , right. That's what I said.
Something is not accepted and rejected at once. Don't talk contradiction and confusion likened to the nature of homosexuality. No straddling the fence here. It's one or the other
" Again this is dishonest, the description and resolution only ever possibly allude to the, "the body" in the vaguest sense of the word. I refuse to stick to Mall's vocabularies because his definitions are literally arbitrary, my definitions are from actual literary scholars, the dictionary. "
This is totally disingenuous of you to argue with someone deliberately dismissing what they're communicating. If you don't understand something, you ask questions like I do. You don't ask, you accept a debate unsure of what a person may mean hoping it all works out any kind of way like the nature of homosexuality.
"Second of all, Mall continuously attempts to point out that the "function of the body rejects homosexuality" because they can not produce viable offspring. This is quite simply Mall repeating their point over and over again, that the body does not function in a way viable with homosexuality. Except, again, this is presuming that the body only accepts things on an anatomical level, which is false, as I have already pointed out, and I extend those points. "
Not quite as this is too simplified. You already proved my point for me when mentioning the following : " Sperm and an egg are necessary, the obvious alluding is simple, have the male ejaculate in a tube or something else that's tight and insert it into the female. "
This is the nature of those sexual reproductive organs . That's not accepting a homosexual nature to do what you , you just said. Otherwise they would be the same organs.
The word nobody was used in the context of the description which is the body. You want to be finicky about the way the word is phrased, you can't prove that I've said all people in their minds reject homosexuality.
To add on top of this, let's say what I mean by "nobody" the way you think , something that contradicts the description or so you assume, is " no person ". Nobody meaning no person. Follow this right here . I already indicated where I said "No person accepts homosexuality. That's absolutely no person as in their body accepts homosexual behavior."
The context is totally cyclic and cohesive. Understand all of the context, don't assume what is meant.
"As any voter can note by now, Mall has completely ignored my actual argumentation, instead of dismissing it by questioning simple terms such as, "Sexual Intercourse" and claiming that this is only looking at it from an anatomical perspective. "
How am I dismissive by asking a question?
You're dismissive by not answering the question.
The difference between no body and nobody is a space between the letters. The rest is up to context . I can choose to phrase it as nobody or no body. The context is clear to what I'm referring to.
From the first round this is highlighted in case you forgot or you're negligent, : "All parallels to no*body* accepting ."
"Everybody or "each body" so we don't get lost in understanding of what's being conveyed, will reject homosexuality due to the sexual organs being denied to reproduce an offspring "
From the description :
"No person accepts homosexuality. That's absolutely no person as in their body accepts homosexual behavior."
So in this segment, I'm using the word person synonymous with body.
"No, I make an objection, "Nobody" and "No body" are clearly different words, they have never meant the same thing, they mean completely separate things with completely separate connotations, having your own interpretations of definitions and such is fine, conflating two words because you realize one doesn't match your intent is dishonest and fallacious. The same goes for the other words Mall attempts to try to redefine with no justification."
From the description : "according to their anatomical setup and design, namely according to their body. "
The context of the debate is clear here. Reference to the body is made. It is made because the meaning of the word "body" has multiple meanings.
Huh, maybe, it definitely doesn't translate well.
I think he may have been inspired by my "Everyone is at least a little racist" arg... But I don't think that carries over very well to this topic.
Why is this even a debate? Con can just say the LGBTQ community accepts homosexuality...
Yeah it is, but still, I find it just a tad insulting. Maybe I'm just a snowflake.
This is too easy for me to even accept because no challenge = no fun.