Why do the Christians always hate sex so much?

[Lion IRC]

....

And proponents of sexual freedom of the inter-species variety argue quite convincingly that in many cases, the animal giving consent is the HUMAN.

....

If they argue "quite convincingly," then what's problem exactly? If you say it's wrong because the "bible says" you lose because we're discussing the sexual ethics not based on the bible. We're proposing ethics based on reason and evidence, not on gut feelings and ancient superstition.

I mean don't get me wrong, I mostly if not 100 percent against beastiality, and certainly 100 percent against pedeophilia.

But saying "what if these creeps have good reasons therefore your ethic is wrong" is a fallacious argument (appeal to incredulity and or fear perhaps?). If they really have good arguments (which I doubt), and they're better than our own, then we should accept them.

I said what they argue quite convincingly is... that in many cases, the animal giving consent is the HUMAN.
That is self-evident.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I said what they argue quite convincingly is... that in many cases, the animal giving consent is the HUMAN.
That is self-evident.

And?

[Lion IRC]

And your objection to beastiality is destroyed.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

And your objection to beastiality is destroyed.

Does the ethic "do others has you would have them do you" still stand? Yep.

My objection is when the animal isn't consenting. If the animal is consenting, according to the ethic, it appears to be ok.

[Cato]

Suppose I want to do unto others as follows...

I'm the parent of a child and I think every other child should (ought to) have the right to a gender-balanced upbringing by their biologically related, opposite gender, monogamous parents.

I guess I should now thank Jebus that you aren't every kid's parent. Gender-balanced? Holy fucking business buzzword abuse of language...what exactly does 'gender-balanced' mean? I can only assume that this is code for 'God hates fags'. Oh, I apologize; you hate the sin, not the sinner. Your bigotry makes perfect sense now.

- I would not cheat on my wife because that would make my child sad.

You are a sad pitiful man if your primary disincentive to cheating on your wife is the emotional state of your child. You deserve a special 'Fuck You' for that exposition of proper Christian monogamous behavior.

- I would not avoid my obligations as the biological father of my child.

How very charitable of you.

- I would not suddenly discover I was gay, get divorced, start campaigning for gay marriage/adoption and impose 18 years of same-sex adoptive parenting on a child that I purchased on the internet from a surrogate mom.

No, you would do none of this. Not because you are 'straight', but because you are too busy using your kid's sadness as an excuse not to spread your latent heterosexual impulses. Buy children on the interent? What type of church do you go to that this bit is accepted as truth? You make arguments about the cost of scientific discovery juxtaposed to starving children, but would be apposed to 'gender-consistent' couples adopting and making a better life for those that are 'disadvataged'. Another 'Fuck You' is in order.


You are just another Christian going out of his way to prove he isn't Christ-like. Fuck off you miserable piece of shit.

[TaraJo]

We can have a bible study together if you like.

Sure, because if you understood half the crazy things the Bible recommends or allows in the name of sexual morality, you'd see the book is just as silly as I do. For example, let's start with Deuteronomy 22:28-29 which commands a rape victim to marry her attacker, which might make it better if she's raped in the city because, instead of marrying her attacker she's put to death as per Deuteronomy 22:23-24. Incest is ok, as Abraham married his half-sister and he was a man of God. Taking a prisoner of war as your wife is ok, too (I can't seem to find the verse atm, but if you really want me to look it up and you'll give me some time, I'm sure I can do it). No, the Bible is a terrible book of morality, sexual and otherwise. In fact, the anti beastiality stance is about the only thing they get right.

I think there is ample scripture to show that committed monogamy between two opposite gender partners (living as one) works best.

Except, as I said, when Biblical patriarchs had an army of wives. Looks like monogamy only works one way, don't it?

As for beastiality/consent. We do tons of things to animals without consent.

You're right, which is why I said those are my rules for sexual morality. General morality is a different story. That one adjective is very important there, hun.

You say pedophilia is out for lack of adult consent but the definition of the word "adult" is as open to change as the definition of the word marriage.

I also agree to that. The age of consent laws vary from state to state, which reflects that. Personally, I'd rather those laws reflect the mental maturity of the people in question, but if that were the case there would be some people who still couldn't get married when they're in their 50's.

[Lion IRC]

Here cato123
Better put this on
Wouldnt want that raw nerve to get infected.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

We can have a bible study together if you like.

...

I think he's hitting on you, TaraJo.

[TaraJo]

...

I think he's hitting on you, TaraJo.

Not gonna happen, for several reasons. Most important being my boyfriend.

[Lion IRC]

Suppose I want to do unto others as follows...

I'm the parent of a child and I think every other child should (ought to) have the right to a gender-balanced upbringing by their biologically related, opposite gender, monogamous parents.

I guess I should now thank Jebus that you aren't every kid's parent. Gender-balanced? Holy fucking business buzzword abuse of language...what exactly does 'gender-balanced' mean? I can only assume that this is code for 'God hates fags'. Oh, I apologize; you hate the sin, not the sinner. Your bigotry makes perfect sense now.

I bet you win all your arguments with that sort of sock-puppet ventriloquism.

- I would not cheat on my wife because that would make my child sad.

You are a sad pitiful man if your primary disincentive to cheating on your wife is the emotional state of your child. You deserve a special 'Fuck You' for that exposition of proper Christian monogamous behavior.

Why bother saying ...if your primary disincentive to cheating..?
Just go ahead and lock yourself in a room and verbal me till the cows come home.

- I would not avoid my obligations as the biological father of my child.

How very charitable of you.

Preach it bro!

- I would not suddenly discover I was gay, get divorced, start campaigning for gay marriage/adoption and impose 18 years of same-sex adoptive parenting on a child that I purchased on the internet from a surrogate mom.

No, you would do none of this. Not because you are 'straight'

I might not be straight. You never know. Tons of ppl dont realise they are actually gay.

...You make arguments about the cost of scientific discovery juxtaposed to starving children, but would be apposed to 'gender-consistent' couples adopting and making a better life for those that are 'disadvataged'. Another 'Fuck You' is in order.

I'm sure Elton John and Ricky Martin are very loving "parents".
But no matter how much they insist they are just as good - they dont have LACTATING BREASTS.

...You are just another Christian going out of his way to prove he isn't Christ-like. Fuck off you miserable piece of shit.

This one's going in the quote-mine vault. Thanks.
I'm starting a collection of ad homs which turn out arent really ad homs after all. The only people I ever see arguing over the definition of an ad hominem attack are people who use phrases like that during an intellectual, contest of ideas dialogue.