Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:38 pm
(September 2, 2015 at 2:34 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Okay, first off an animal cannot give consent, and without the ability to consent the animal is freightened and scared with no ability to understand what is happening. It's hurts the animals and it leads to potential harm for humans as well. Now imagine a world where beastiality is okay. Imagine animals being cultivated for nothing more then to be fucked. You see what we do with factory farming now, so picture that only, fucking animals before you kill them. Imagine a world where you have to leave your husband because he fucked a horse.
Now here is what I find ironic. I'm here arguing against it using my reason and empathy, your reasoning is "its bad because gawd said so." So your using this to try to make religious morality look good when in fact if your Bible said every woman must fuck a goat you'd be telling how great it is and I would still be arguing its wrong.
You may have missed the caveat where I said "so long as the animal is not being harmed/endangered in any way, whether physically, emotionally, or mentally."
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:38 pm
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 13122
Threads: 130
Joined: October 18, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:39 pm
(September 2, 2015 at 2:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Not sure why you think I look ridiculous.
Because in all these discussion about sex the word consent was always a large part of the deal. In short, Fido can't offer consent.
So, you obviously didn't get that message before or you're simply posting a loaded question.
Posts: 12232
Threads: 324
Joined: April 14, 2011
Reputation:
140
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:40 pm
If you honestly need your religion to give you a moral basis as to why fucking animals is a bad thing, then it says a lot more about you than you think.
Posts: 3837
Threads: 197
Joined: August 28, 2013
Reputation:
38
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:40 pm
(September 2, 2015 at 2:38 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (September 2, 2015 at 2:34 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Okay, first off an animal cannot give consent, and without the ability to consent the animal is freightened and scared with no ability to understand what is happening. It's hurts the animals and it leads to potential harm for humans as well. Now imagine a world where beastiality is okay. Imagine animals being cultivated for nothing more then to be fucked. You see what we do with factory farming now, so picture that only, fucking animals before you kill them. Imagine a world where you have to leave your husband because he fucked a horse.
Now here is what I find ironic. I'm here arguing against it using my reason and empathy, your reasoning is "its bad because gawd said so." So your using this to try to make religious morality look good when in fact if your Bible said every woman must fuck a goat you'd be telling how great it is and I would still be arguing its wrong.
You may have missed the caveat where I said "so long as the animal is not being harmed/endangered in any way, whether physically, emotionally, or mentally." I address it in my second post. You missed my second assertion in that quote. I'd like to see you address that.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:40 pm
(September 2, 2015 at 2:35 pm)Exian Wrote: Oh, is that a catholic thing? About the bulls, I mean. Is artificial insemination wrong for the animal kingdom as well, or is this just a personal belief?
The Church hasn't specifically, officially spoken on this issue. But I personally think it's immoral because I see it as disrespectful to the animals. They shouldn't be treated as objects like that.
But for the sake of staying on the topic at hand, I don't want to continue to delve too far into it lol.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:43 pm
(September 2, 2015 at 2:38 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: (September 2, 2015 at 2:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Not sure why you think I look ridiculous. This is an honest question. Obviously it's gross and repulsive and completely unnatural to the majority of people (except those who actually have an attraction towards animals), but really, what is the objective, secular reason why this should not be legal so long as the animal is not being harmed physically, mentally, or emotionally?
What is the objective, secular reason for not doing it to babies that are no smarter then animals?
I don't know why you're asking me that, since I'm not secular, but I'd appreciate staying on topic. 
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 5599
Threads: 37
Joined: July 13, 2015
Reputation:
61
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:43 pm
Most people would agree that bestiality is a cruel violation and a sick abuse of animals. It's illegal due to the matter of consent. No one's needs a Bible to tell them that.
Your intentions are very transparent, my dear. I cannot be the only person that sees through this facade. There's no way.
Posts: 69248
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:43 pm
Quote: Let's say someone puts peanut butter or something on their own private parts, for example. Why should that be illegal if the animal is just licking peanut butter and isn't being hurt in any way?
I don't know, C/L. That's quite an imagination you have there.
Wish I'd met you when I was younger!
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:44 pm
(September 2, 2015 at 2:39 pm)abaris Wrote: (September 2, 2015 at 2:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Not sure why you think I look ridiculous.
Because in all these discussion about sex the word consent was always a large part of the deal. In short, Fido can't offer consent.
So, you obviously didn't get that message before or you're simply posting a loaded question.
I addressed the consent part on the OP, and I'd like it if you addressed the point I made in regards to it. I'd like to have a discussion about this because I am genuinely interested in hearing yalls views. Please don't be hostile or dismissive.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
|
![[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-d-3rfdI7nG0%2FTerwtFyFXoI%2FAAAAAAAACak%2F7kFSmHeVrng%2Fs320%2FBumper%2BSticker%2B-%2BAsheville%2B-%2BPraise%2BDog3.JPG)
