"Republican side think that homosexuals are okay, but that abortions arent."
Yes they're in contradiction, I agree. I appreciate you giving an example of a conflicted group.
"If I were to concede that all persons who support homosexuality support abortion, then I dont know what is there to debate, as that was the only point."
Many people do realize their inconsistency and I may have to demonstrate you're one of them being that you're attempting to argue against me unless you concede .
"Obviously, gay consensual sex isnt consenting to pregnancy.
Consenting means agreeing to".
Very interesting aspect. We can argue that it is . Which was why homosexuality was diagnosed as an illness back in the 1970s.
Goes back to the first round , I said :
"But why is it still consent to pregnancy? It's consent to the function. The function is connected or linked to its aftermath."
Additionally:
"I want to inseminate but I don't want insemination. You doing exactly what you want to get what you don't want."
With that said, what do homosexual males want?
Homosexual males that want to use what they use doing penile sexual activity want that and agree to using that. When we look beyond the surface, these males desire and consent to inseminate, but do it with the wrong sex.
See, the function of insemination is what conjures up the libido or drive to use it which the homosexual males in their mind may categorize as just same gender loving intimacy.
But this drive and desire to do such things with same sex individuals you are attracted to do this with , hence the diagnosis. Effectively, these men are attracted to inseminate one other. But men can't do that but yet desire to as they desire to engage in the penile sexual reproductive use of the organ with the same sex that is inapplicable to it.
So yes, biologically homosexuals consent to it as well in paradoxical terms.
"A woman who has sex while using protection clearly isnt agreeing to be pregnant."
Question, is her body agreeing to it?
If you say yes, is the woman disagreeing with own body?
If you say yes, why does she desire for a man to penetrate her to the point of his climax at least?
Surely the woman is not contradicting her own desires. She is engaging in this because of a desire brought on by biological functionality in which that functionality it linked to the aftermath of pregnancy biologically.
Subconsciously , that is unbeknownst to her, not a thought to her, but she is biologically wired in agreement with this and has done things in tandem with it.
If you like, next round, I can give examples. I've given you enough to unpack and tackle with her with the questions I asked you non rhetorically.
"My opponent uses different words like "function" and "risk", but these arent arguments."
Good because I don't have to argue this. You dropped your position as to what was said to be risk and you affirmed it as function to what I said demonstrated via all those posts.
"Thus, even if I were to concede that function of sex is pregnancy, it still wouldnt lead to conclusion that agreeing to sex is agreeing to pregnancy, because "function" and "agreeing to function" are different and arent mutually inclusive."
So again because you have not debunked this, I made these illustrations that have gone uncountered. Your rebuttals in this topic so far is on the short side. You have a week, add up the counterpoints .
When I'm agreeing to use something for what it does, how am I'm then truly looking to reject the outcome?
I don't disagree with the outcome by said cause.
If I don't want the outcome, I will not being doing what is designed to cause it. I will not engage in sex because I do not agree to producing offspring. The issue of abortion will always be present with the so called unwanted pregnancy because people are doing to get what they say they don't want .
I will not push that power button on that t.v. remote because I don't authorize or consent to having that television on .
The problem with that is because I enjoy simply pressing the button but I say I don't want the button to fulfill its function, that's exactly what I'm agreeing to the acknowledgement of. Which is its function the way it works by my engaging in/with it. I'm doing something that will do what that something does.
Now if you disagree, refute my example, refute my illustration.
"If he wants to address my quotes and my previous debates, sure, I guess he can. However, I am not going to go explaining each quote and each debate he mentions. This isnt a debate about me as a topic."
No it just proves that you can argue for both homosexuality and abortion. So if you can do it, why couldn't they be both sides of one coin?
One is in bed with the other, goes hand and hand , two sides of the same coin, etc.
Good debate topic. I want to see the outcome