|
|
#1
04-06-2006, 02:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
For hardcore conservatives 2
Despite the complete lack of evidence that being brought up by two parents who regularly engage in bestiality will make the child more likely to engage in such behavior, let's assume what the conservatives fear is true, that kids brought up in that environment will themselves engage in zooerastia.
Even if this is true, WHO CARES? So what if they like to cornhole the family dog. Why should that matter? They're still human beings capable of productivity, creativity, happiness and usefulness to society. The need to reproduce isn't going to be diminished any...we're already presupposing that those inclined to bestiality WANT to reproduce/raise children. So what is the downside? What damage do these people do to society that isn't a side effect brought on by zooerastia phobia? 
|
|
#4
04-06-2006, 03:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For hardcore conservatives 2
[ QUOTE ]
Despite the complete lack of evidence that being brought up by two parents who regularly engage in bestiality will make the child more likely to engage in such behavior, let's assume what the conservatives fear is true, that kids brought up in that environment will themselves engage in zooerastia. Even if this is true, WHO CARES? So what if they like to cornhole the family dog. Why should that matter? They're still human beings capable of productivity, creativity, happiness and usefulness to society. The need to reproduce isn't going to be diminished any...we're already presupposing that those inclined to bestiality WANT to reproduce/raise children. So what is the downside? What damage do these people do to society that isn't a side effect brought on by zooerastia phobia? [/ QUOTE ] While I would prefer not to defend hmk, who tries his best to appear to be lacking in certain qualities that I would normally use in my definition of a human being (although I don't think he lacks those really), he is talking about something different in his post. The person who has sex with a CONSENTING adult human being is not as objectionable as someone who has sex with something that cannot consent. While I wouldn't say that other animals are owed the exact same things by justice as humans, do to their different qualities and lack of ability to give justice in return, we might still say that human beings have a duty to not harm animals (something that has weight but can be overriden given extreme circumstances e.g. the cat is going to kill a baby if we don't stop it); we have a natural duty to cats as living, feeling beings therefore we should not beat them or have sex with them (always rape I think, because of no consent). It amazes me that people (still) even equate homosexuality with bestiality, and of course makes me feel a bit disgusted.
|
|
#5
04-06-2006, 03:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For hardcore conservatives 2
[ QUOTE ]
The person who has sex with a CONSENTING adult human being is not as objectionable as someone who has sex with something that cannot consent. [/ QUOTE ] Wrong
|
|
#7
04-06-2006, 04:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For hardcore conservatives 2
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Despite the complete lack of evidence that being brought up by two parents who regularly engage in bestiality will make the child more likely to engage in such behavior, let's assume what the conservatives fear is true, that kids brought up in that environment will themselves engage in zooerastia. Even if this is true, WHO CARES? So what if they like to cornhole the family dog. Why should that matter? They're still human beings capable of productivity, creativity, happiness and usefulness to society. The need to reproduce isn't going to be diminished any...we're already presupposing that those inclined to bestiality WANT to reproduce/raise children. So what is the downside? What damage do these people do to society that isn't a side effect brought on by zooerastia phobia? [/ QUOTE ] While I would prefer not to defend hmk, who tries his best to appear to be lacking in certain qualities that I would normally use in my definition of a human being (although I don't think he lacks those really), he is talking about something different in his post. The person who has sex with a CONSENTING adult human being is not as objectionable as someone who has sex with something that cannot consent. While I wouldn't say that other animals are owed the exact same things by justice as humans, do to their different qualities and lack of ability to give justice in return, we might still say that human beings have a duty to not harm animals (something that has weight but can be overriden given extreme circumstances e.g. the cat is going to kill a baby if we don't stop it); we have a natural duty to cats as living, feeling beings therefore we should not beat them or have sex with them (always rape I think, because of no consent). It amazes me that people (still) even equate homosexuality with bestiality, and of course makes me feel a bit disgusted. [/ QUOTE ] The comparison lies in a sexual preference in which people are not being negatively affected. As long as it is not physically harmful to the animal we need not concern ourselves with consent. Bestiality is a sexual preference among some that has no bearing on how they may rear children. With the lack of suitable homes surely you cannot exclude those who are so inclined.
|
|
#8
04-06-2006, 04:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For hardcore conservatives 2
This is an issue similar to vegetarianism. I'm vegetarian, but I don't believe I should force that onto others. Likewise, I choose to abstain from raping barnyard animals, but I don't believe I should force that onto others.
Really, sex with animals is nowhere near as cruel as most farming practices today. And what if the animal wants it? If you have a similar problem with the meat industry that's one thing, but otherwise you're just being hypocritical. Stop eating those steaks and you'll have some room to talk. People claim that consent is the issue, but I think it all goes back to "the necromancy thing." People don't like it because they're trained not to, plain and simple. There's no good reason for it.
|
|
#9
04-06-2006, 04:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For hardcore conservatives 2
[ QUOTE ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The person who has sex with a CONSENTING adult human being is not as objectionable as someone who has sex with something that cannot consent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wrong [/ QUOTE ] But the bible says masturbation is wrong? Anyway, I do need to change this to "the person who has sex with a consenting human being is not as objectionable as someone who has something that cannot consent but has a central nervous system".
|
|
#10
04-06-2006, 04:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For hardcore conservatives 2
[ QUOTE ]
This is an issue similar to vegetarianism. I'm vegetarian, but I don't believe I should force that onto others. Likewise, I choose to abstain from raping barnyard animals, but I don't believe I should force that onto others. Really, sex with animals is nowhere near as cruel as most farming practices today. And what if the animal wants it? If you have a similar problem with the meat industry that's one thing, but otherwise you're just being hypocritical. Stop eating those steaks and you'll have some room to talk. People claim that consent is the issue, but I think it all goes back to "the necromancy thing." People don't like it because they're trained not to, plain and simple. There's no good reason for it. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, we decide that the animal wants it how? And farming practices and sex with animals can both be wrong. How about this: A new fad comes into town where it is considered cool to kill dogs, cats pigs and cows for fun: not for food, not for any use that is part of any kind of sustenance of another species, not something that would happen with out human beings doing whatever they want to the rest of the universe without any regard for the consequences on the rest of the universe (like animals eating other species). Is this a problem? Is this unforceable by law. Still, you have a point: if animals have intrinsic importance, it would seem that many farming practices today are wrong.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
