• ‘Marriage equality could lead to bestiality’ senator falls further into the shit
    227 replies, posted
people trying to justify bestiality is hilarious.
[quote]"I don't want to drag an unrelated issue into this important conference."[/quote] Could've done a better job of that.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37783220]people trying to justify bestiality is hilarious.[/QUOTE] explain [editline]edit[/editline] a dumb rating is not a valid explanation iirc
Hey Australia, stop trying to best us in the retarded politician department :v:
[QUOTE=DaMastez;37782458]Every time some politician says something really stupid like this, I wonder if they actually believe what they are saying, or it's some play to get more votes. I mean really, how backwards can someone be to compare two humans of the same sex being attracted to each other to a human essentially raping some animal?[/QUOTE] The problem is not comparing a human to an animal. What the politician is getting at is, following the "you can stick your dick into anything as long as the other thing (whether its a human or animal) consents" logic will eventually lead to bestiality. There was a time when homosexuality was considered a perversion, not anyone who says so is backwards. There will be a time when someone who considers bestiality a perversion is considered backwards. [I]Its okay as long as its about free will. Who cares about morality right, cause thats just BS and backwards.[/I]
[QUOTE=C47;37783342]The problem is not comparing a human to an animal. What the politician is getting at is, following the "you can stick your dick into anything as long as the other thing (whether its a human or animal) consents" logic will eventually lead to bestiality. There was a time when homosexuality was considered a perversion, not anyone who says so is backwards. There will be a time when someone who considers bestiality a perversion is considered backwards. [I]Its okay as long as its about free will. Who cares about morality right, cause thats just BS and backwards.[/I][/QUOTE] Yeah, there was a time when slavery was considered 'okay', too. Does that mean it [I]wasn't,[/I] at least in retrospect, backwards? The logic isn't "you can stick your dick into anything as long as the other thing consents", it's "two legally consenting adults should be able to have sex and get married whether heterosexual or homosexual".
But if those two guys can get married the gay will spread and evolve into eating the poo of animals and marrying it!
[QUOTE=C47;37783342]The problem is not comparing a human to an animal. What the politician is getting at is, following the "you can stick your dick into anything as long as the other thing (whether its a human or animal) consents" logic will eventually lead to bestiality. There was a time when homosexuality was considered a perversion, not anyone who says so is backwards. There will be a time when someone who considers bestiality a perversion is considered backwards. [I]Its okay as long as its about free will. Who cares about morality right, cause thats just BS and backwards.[/I][/QUOTE] morality is an entirely subjective concept, and doesn't necessarily exist. there are people who believe capital punishment is moral for example, and others who believe that rehabilitation is more moral. if you base your logic off of these 'morals' then you doom yourself to never progressing, when you could be looking at scientific fact and using that to guide your morals instead.
[QUOTE=Megafan;37783359]The logic isn't "you can stick your dick into anything as long as the other thing consents", it's "two legally consenting adults should be able to have sex and get married whether heterosexual or homosexual".[/QUOTE] Like I said, its about consent. In the countries where zoophilia is legal, as long as the animal isnt raped, its ok.
[QUOTE=C47;37783462]Like I said, its about consent. In the countries where zoophilia is legal, as long as the animal isnt raped, its ok.[/QUOTE] Its sick and disgusting. You can't prove you aren't raping the animal when you stick your dick into it if you can't speak its language, since its brain is to small to comprehend consent in the first place.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37783542]Its sick and disgusting. You can't prove you aren't raping the animal when you stick your dick into it if you can't speak its language, since its brain is to small to comprehend consent in the first place.[/QUOTE] way to misinterpret the debate. this is based upon, if an animal can be proven to consent then why should it be illegal. ('it's sick and disgusting' isnt a valid reason to criminalize it) i also like it how you make the assumption that animals cannot communicate whatsoever
Again though, how do you go about proving the consent in a way that would hold up in court, for example? Just because the animal didn't do something to stop you doesn't necessarily mean it liked you having sex with it. Edit: And yeah, animals can communicate, but we can't really understand them reliably.
[QUOTE=Bobie;37783569]way to misinterpret the debate. this is based upon, if an animal can be proven to consent then why should it be illegal. ('it's sick and disgusting' isnt a valid reason to criminalize it) i also like it how you make the assumption that animals cannot communicate whatsoever[/QUOTE] Theory is not proof. Its outlawed in 90% of the civilized world for a reason, to protect against animal abuse. I'm willing to bet they'd rather have one of their own kind do it rather then some alien. God damn, do you honestly expect them to fight the person who feeds them?
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37783601]Theory is not proof. Its outlawed in 90% of the civilized world for a reason, to protect against animal abuse. [I]I'm willing to bet they'd rather have one of their own kind do it rather then some alien.[/I][/QUOTE] i don't necessarily see the difference if they give consent. if there were a mechanism for animals to provide consent and prevent against animal abuse then there would be no problems. this could be done i would imagine through psychological evaluation, licensing and other legal procedures.
[QUOTE=Bobie;37783624]i don't necessarily see the difference if they give consent. if there were a mechanism for animals to provide consent and prevent against animal abuse then there would be no problems. this could be done i would imagine through psychological evaluation, licensing and other legal procedures.[/QUOTE] Willing to bet 99.9% would avoid you for the rest of your life if they found out you raped animals.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37783644]Willing to bet 99.9% would avoid you for the rest of your life if they found out you raped animals.[/QUOTE] did you choose to ignore my entire post or what. for the record i'm heterosexual; but it's nice to see you use the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum"]'society doesn't like it therefore it's wrong!' argument[/URL]
[QUOTE=Bobie;37783664]did you choose to ignore my entire post or what. for the record i'm heterosexual; but it's nice to see you use the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum"]'society doesn't like it therefore it's wrong!' argument[/URL][/QUOTE] Society doesn't like it because it is wrong to rape animals. This isn't the middle ages we live in today.
[QUOTE=imadaman;37782249]Huh. I expected this to be from an American senator.[/QUOTE] Uhhh, helloooooo! Being upside-down doesn't automatically make you less crazy!
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37783672]Society doesn't like it because it is wrong to rape animals. This isn't the middle ages we live in today.[/QUOTE] it's not rape if it's consenting. my post explicitly states that there can be legal mechanisms for ensuring the prevention of animal rape while allowing man/animal sexual relations to exist.
[QUOTE=Bobie;37783692]it's not rape if it's consenting. my post explicitly states that there can be legal mechanisms for ensuring the prevention of animal rape while allowing man/animal sexual relations to exist.[/QUOTE] Theory's of consent aren't proof, and you can't find out if your theory is correct until you rape an animal to begin with. Hence why society hates anyone who tries to justify raping an animal.
Bobie, asking an animal if you want to fuck it is like asking a 3 year old human to have sex with you. They wouldn't even know what sex feels like, especially if they're virgins. If the animal is small, they would be in extreme agony (unless the rapist has micropenis, which nearly all animal fuckers have) and they wouldn't know this agony.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37783702]Theory's of consent aren't proof, and you can't find out if your theory is correct until you rape an animal to begin with. Hence why society hates anyone who tries to justify raping an animal.[/QUOTE] what? you can look at how animals give consent to their natural partners then if they give consent in the same way to a human, that is not rape. i don't get how you cannot understand this concept [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;37783706]Bobie, asking an animal if you want to fuck it is like asking a 3 year old human to have sex with you. They wouldn't even know what sex feels like, especially if they're virgins. If the animal is small, they would be in extreme agony (unless the rapist has micropenis, which nearly all animal fuckers have) and they wouldn't know this agony.[/QUOTE] that is a terrible comparison because 3 year olds are not sexually developed and do not have an understanding or concept of it. legal consent ages are based off of this, which is why they exist around 15-16
Wasn't there also a study that said animal fuckers had a higher chance of dick cancer.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37783722]Wasn't there also a study that said animal fuckers had a higher chance of dick cancer.[/QUOTE] eloquently put, i'd like to see a source on this.
[QUOTE=Bobie;37783715]what? you can look at how animals give consent to their natural partners then if they give consent in the same way to a human, that is not rape. i don't get how you cannot understand this concept that is a terrible comparison because 3 year olds are not sexually developed and do not have an understanding or concept of it. legal consent ages are based off of this, which is why they exist around 15-16[/QUOTE] Because the concept is flawed as you aren't a animal. [QUOTE=Bobie;37783727]eloquently put, i'd like to see a source on this.[/QUOTE] [url]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02512.x/abstract[/url]
Facepunch: Where discussions about gay rights turn into flame wars over bestiality.
I don't understand why is this such a hot topic among politics, when there are so many other important things that actually matter.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37783728]Because the concept is flawed as you aren't a animal. [url]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02512.x/abstract[/url][/QUOTE] the abstract states 'possible association' with an acknowledged disregard for an assload of other factors that could have potentially come into play for those with zoophillia. it's also kindof irrelevant since if that's what people want to do, and are educated on the risk factors i do not see the problem.
Bobie, animals are dumb. A 5 year old dog would be like 40 in dog years, but it would have the mind of a 3 year old. A life expectancy for a dog is like 14 years, the age of a 14 year old dog would be aged 80 physically. I dont think an 80 year old can handle rough sex.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;37783782]Bobie, animals are dumb. A 5 year old dog would be like 40 in dog years, but it would have the mind of a 3 year old. A life expectancy for a dog is like 14 years, the age of a 14 year old dog would be aged 80 physically.[b] I dont think an 80 year old can handle rough sex.[/b][/QUOTE] looks like you haven't clicked the scarier sections of porn sites then
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.