Bestiality and Homosexuality go hand in hand

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gem The link I posted on bestiality doesn't rely on inciting hatred towards the practitioners of this aberration in a way comparable to how racist propaganda does.

Making false generalisations about a minority group based on the harmful actions of a small section of this group seems pretty reminiscent of a lot of the racist propaganda I've seen.

Quote by: Gem The material addresses itself chiefly to the possible harm sex with animals can do to both parties, which is a consideration rooted in compassion rather than in blind condemnation.

But it takes this possible harm and falsely applies it to all cases of bestiality. Why would it do this if its motivations were compassion and not bigotry?

Quote by: Gem But all this has an air of deja vu about it, since I took the trouble to follow your arguments on this precise subject on another site, dating from over a year ago. There, one of your opponents listed a great many diseases it is possible to be transmitted to both humans and animals in the course of inter-species sex - just as I was prepared to do had I not been beaten to it -

I have no recollection of this. Which site was it?

Quote by: Gem but your reply was characteristically dismissive, saying that "with care" these hazards might be avoided.

Just as there are diseases that can be spread by anal sex, and these can be avoided with proper precautions. What was your point exactly?

Quote by: Gem This further proves to me the futility of trying to get a person with your views to admit that there could be any possible harm in bestiality

I've never denied possible harm, so drop the strawman. Of course theres possible harm in it, as there is possible harm in anything when practiced unsafely.

But you are not trying to prove possible harm to me; you are trying to prove to me that all acts of bestiality are harmful.

Quote by: Gem - your prejudice in favour of the practice amounting to a bias at least as pronounced as anything your opponents might say.

I hardly think asking you to prove your claim that something is harmful demonstrates a prejudice akin to that of someone who insists that something is inherently harmful while obviously having no evidence to back this up with.

Quote by: Gem Even when it can be shown that there is an unacceptably high level of risk involved to the human instigator

Can it? Source please.

Quote by: Gem you prefer to shut it out - presumably because these facts run directly counter to your no-holds-barred philosophy... and therein lies the difference between what I posted and what tinybear posted - my fact-sheet isn't superstitiously prescriptive in its motivation, and neither is it concerned to proselytise in any religious sense.

Their concern for small animals which may be injured by penetration is valid. But this concern is not valid for larger animals such as dogs and horses who, by their own admission, are by far the most common 'victims'. Thus this concern for small animals' wellbeing is not grounds to condemn the entire practice of bestiality.

And yet the article does just that. What motivation, other than bigotry, could it possibly have for doing this?

Quote by: Gem As I read it, I see far more concern for the abused creature than condemnation for the perpetrator

And abuse requires an abuser, a term with heavily implied condemnation. Referring to bestiality as abuse calls those who indulge in it abusers and therefore condemns them.

Now, if it had provided any grounds on which to refer to the practice of bestiality as abuse, this condemnation would be valid. But we both agree that it did not provide any such grounds (or that is what I must take from your lack of response to my post).

[GeminiBrian]

Bacon.

I added an additional quote (from a vet) to my last post to you. Having just read your reply, I think it has some relevance.

I haven't forgotten your earlier post - but I'm too knackered tonight to concentrate on it. Maybe tomorrow.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gem Bacon. I added an additional quote (from a vet) to my last post to you. Having just read your reply, I think it has some relevance.

I got a popup ad when I clicked your link. The quote is word for word taken from the factsheet you already provided, and has thus already been addressed. Better get working on that reply, I think.

[tinybear]

Oh come on guys, surely you're not saying that Health Canada and Public Health Agency of Canada are deliberately spreading bias and untruths about the gay lifestyle are you? Well, some gay activists are.

Homosexuals' Complaint against Health Canada Lists Negative Health Consequences of Homosexual Lifestyle

[princessme23]

It is worth noting that homosexuals adopt in very high frequencies, when allowed. It has been speculated that one reason for the survival of homosexuality in mammal species is that they contribute to child care while not actually producing children themselves, therefore providing increased social stability and 'higher quality' physical and mental growth for children than would otherwise be the case. Homosexuality is a more plausible mutation for reducing the number of offspring than asexuality. In today's world of overly abundant populations and depressing large quantities of orphans, that function of homosexuals has much use.

Please post that on the homosexual marriage thread!
I was thinking exact thing but you,ve worded it so much better

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: tinybear Oh come on guys, surely you're not saying that Health Canada and Public Health Agency of Canada are deliberately spreading bias and untruths about the gay lifestyle are you? Homosexuals' Complaint against Health Canada Lists Negative Health Consequences of Homosexual Lifestyle

Oh! deary me, tiny - this seems to be the answer to your question -- and I quote from the small print in your link.

Seems you have more confidence in the unbiased nature of these sites than they deserve.

Who Produces LifeSiteNews? The service was originally started by Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), a Canadian national pro-life organization headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Campaign Life Coalition, founded in 1978, was one of the first pro-life organizations to emphasize the international dimension of attacks on life and family. Along with a few other groups it pioneered pro-life lobbying at United Nations conferences. CLC president, Jim Hughes, is currently also vice-president of the International Right to Life Federation.

And what are it's principles and aims?

LifeSiteNews.com emphasizes the social worth of traditional Judeo-Christian principles but is also respectful of all authentic religions and cultures that esteem life, family and universal norms of morality....LifeSiteNews.com's writers and its founders, have come to understand that respect for life and family are endangered by an international conflict. That conflict is between radically opposed views of the worth and dignity of every human life and of family life and community. It has been caused by secularists attempting to eliminate Christian morality and natural law principles which are seen as the primary obstacles to implementing their new world order.

The fact is, whenever you find a site that revels in disparaging homosexuality (as each and every link you have posted so far does) - the agenda, although often disguised as concern - is ALWAYS to draw attention to the inferiority of all things gay. You were obviously taken in (yet again) by this outfit's claims to impartiality, only to find yourself being seen to support the anti-gay propaganda.

There seems to be a pattern emerging from all this - which is why I said you are always negative about homosexuality on these threads. As I pointed out to you in my last post - if I was to scour the net for anti-Chinese propaganda and throw it at you at every opportunity, you might gain some idea of what it feels like to always have to correct all the false assumptions, all the misuse of statistics, and all the unsubtle aspersions which are the stock-in-trade of these sorts of sites.

I'll give you an example: "The Chinese are behaving abominably in Tibet - and it would be difficult to find a single Chinese person who condemns this outrage, or who doesn't support the violation of human rights." or "the Chinese regularly skin cats alive, and torture bears for their bile - so they are an exceptionally cruel race of people"

Not nice is it? - and yet you keep this sort of thing coming in relation to us gays - so believe me, whatever your intentions are, I find the whole thing extremely depressing and utterly pointless.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gem I'll give you an example: "The Chinese are behaving abominably in Tibet - and it would be difficult to find a single Chinese person who condemns this outrage, or who doesn't support the violation of human rights." or "the Chinese regularly skin cats alive, and torture bears for their bile - so they are an exceptionally cruel race of people" Not nice is it?

Then why do you insist on doing exactly the same thing with those who engage in bestiality? Your glaring hypocrisy is not going unnoticed. Through your posts in this thread you have forfeited any moral high ground you may have had on the issue of bigotry or discrimination.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Then why do you insist on doing exactly the same thing with those who engage in bestiality? Your glaring hypocrisy is not going unnoticed. Through your posts in this thread you have forfeited any moral high ground you may have had on the issue of bigotry or discrimination.

Moral high ground? ... Hypocrisy? - If being consistent means sacrificing my freedom to vary my views in accordance to the intensity of my feelings on a given subject, I think I will stick to being inconsistent, thanks! I speak from the heart, Bacon, as you might have noticed - and I will gladly leave the moral high ground to those with more static and inflexible opinions.

Who wants to be a paragon? If you criticised me for being insincere I would really be worried... but thanks for the end-of-term report on my progress - I will try harder to confirm with your narrow dictates next term, Sir....

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gem Moral high ground? ... Hypocrisy? - If being consistent means sacrificing my freedom to vary my views in accordance to the intensity of my feelings on a given subject, I think I will stick to being inconsistent, thanks!

Fine, just don't pretend you're any better than the others who let their irrational prejudices and bigotry shape their views.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Fine, just don't pretend you're any better than the others who let their irrational prejudices and bigotry shape their views.

OK - I won't.

You know, Porky, I sometimes think you take this debate thing way too seriously... me?... let's just say I think of these forums as a place to exchange ideas, and being rigidly consistent and having to substantiate everything can so easily impair communication.

Maybe the two hemispheres of my brain aren't quite so integrated as yours. So you don't have to take me too seriously either...

Now be a good boy and don't interrupt me whilst I'm attempting to answer your post of yesterday.

[tinybear]

Quote by: GeminiBrian I'll give you an example: "The Chinese are behaving abominably in Tibet - and it would be difficult to find a single Chinese person who condemns this outrage, or who doesn't support the violation of human rights." or "the Chinese regularly skin cats alive, and torture bears for their bile - so they are an exceptionally cruel race of people" Not nice is it? - and yet you keep this sort of thing coming in relation to us gays - so believe me, whatever your intentions are, I find the whole thing extremely depressing and utterly pointless.

On the contrary, I agree that the Chinese suffer from many character defects. For one, the Chinese are natural followers and not many of them are of leadership calibre. They have the 'slave mentality' and obedience to authority is their natural instinct. Take Jackie Chan for example. He genuinely believes that Chinese need to be controlled because they can't function if they are given too much freedom. This coming from a guy who has reached the top in his field. Need I say more? Another thing: Chinese tend to bully those who are below them and 'kow tow' to those above. So they enter Tibet and boss the Tibetans around. But when it comes to the Japanese, they would surrender without even a serious fight. The Tiaoyu Islands is a very good example. If the Chinese had any dignity left their gun boats would be patrolling those islands instead of the Japanese.

See? I accept the truth when it is staring me in the face, however ugly it may be. That because I look at facts and accept them. As I said, free your mind.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gem You know, Porky, I sometimes think you take this debate thing way too seriously... me?... let's just say I think of these forums as a place to exchange ideas, and being rigidly consistent and having to substantiate everything can so easily impair communication.

Volconvo is a debate forum; not a chatroom. There's little to be gained from unimpaired communication if this communication simply involves people throwing back and forth their emotional responses and blind prejudices. Debate requires you to use your power of reasoning.

As for taking it seriously, I don't generally take anything seriously. I just don't like seeing someone being reprimanded for bigotry by someone who is himself a bigot.

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Making false generalisations about a minority group based on the harmful actions of a small section of this group seems pretty reminiscent of a lot of the racist propaganda I've seen.

I'm sorry you see it that way, Bacon, especially that I made false generalisations. However, I don't accept the comparison between racist propaganda, which is essentially repulsive, and a fact sheet which only attempts to collate the various effects of bestiality on both 'partners'...

It's too easy to dismiss the latter as propaganda, because that term implies at least a covert hatred of the target subject - and I see no evidence of hostility in the fact sheet... It may not be entirely neutral either, I agree, but that is hardly surprising given the strong, probably atavistic, feelings generated by the practice of sex with non-consenting animals.

You must ask yourself why most people feel this way, even members of other minority groups such as myself, because I wouldn't dream of condemning anything unless I was convinced it caused avoidable suffering. Just saying that there is no specific proof that bestiality does so is besides the point, since I trust my intuition - and that tells me very clearly that some sort of boundary has been crossed here... Irrational in the strict sense of the word - I daresay - but unless you are saying that intuition and gut feeling are totally redundant things in determining our convictions, you must concede at least a little ground, and that such feelings ought to be taken on board.

But it takes this possible harm and falsely applies it to all cases of bestiality. Why would it do this if its motivations were compassion and not bigotry?

The only alternative to a blanket opposition to bestiality is for you, or a like-minded person, to come up with a graded scale of injury or distress to the animal, which is ridiculous.

At the top end you might have sexual relations with horses or donkeys - (nil point - presumably) - working your way down the scale via large dogs (possibility of rectal damage, infection, causing disturbed behaviour such that the dog is rendered unsafe as a human companion for aggressive behavioural reasons) - then you have to decide what constitutes the cut-off point between a large dog and a small one (unavoidable damage if penetrated) - to cats and smaller animals, where the consequences os sexual abuse would include death, in all probability...what a travesty it would all be, you have to admit.

I have no recollection of this. Which site was it?

Democracy Forums - View Profile: The Bacon Guy

Just as there are diseases that can be spread by anal sex, and these can be avoided with proper precautions. What was your point exactly?

Like a man reckless enough to force himself on an animal is going to remember to wear a condom? besides, most animals might well react violently with teeth and claws, I imagine, which puts the perpetrator at risk as well, unless the poor creature is restrained by some means - which makes the analogy with rape even more disturbing.

I've never denied possible harm, so drop the strawman. Of course theres possible harm in it, as there is possible harm in anything when practiced unsafely.

Rape can, technically speaking, be practised 'safely' - but the harm it can do can be measured in all sorts of other ways.

But you are not trying to prove possible harm to me; you are trying to prove to me that all acts of bestiality are harmful.

Back to the graded scale again - why can't you accept that a practise which causes a human being to put sexual gratification above all considerations of health risks, compassion, and, (yes), questions of dignity - is ultimately a bad thing for all concerned. Many vets, I don't doubt, have had to deal with physically and mentally damaged pets, for instance - to say nothing of the many more animals that are simply killed after the act - in keeping with the essentially sadistic and controlling nature of this condition.

Don't rely on me to supply you with appropriate reading matter - just stop pretending that all is good and proper when it clearly isn't.

Their concern for small animals which may be injured by penetration is valid. But this concern is not valid for larger animals such as dogs and horses who, by their own admission, are by far the most common 'victims'. Thus this concern for small animals' wellbeing is not grounds to condemn the entire practice of bestiality.

Like I said - how many shades of bestiality do you advocate? Besides, If a person is capable of forcing him or herself on an animal, who is to say that they are going to confine themselves to just the one species? What a legal nightmare it would be to juggle all these provisos - more expedient all round to ban bestiality in toto, surely? A person convicted of sex with a horse could always challenge a guilty verdict on the grounds it caused no harm - but what a waste of time and money that would be, not to mention a mockery of the court system. It simply isn't realistic.

OK - prosecute under existing laws against animal cruelty, but these are notoriously fickle and difficult to enact. Especially so in the case of unwitnessed encounters, and given the probability that a sexually injured animal would be killed on the spot, and the evidence disposed of.

Even more importantly, turning a blind eye to bestiality would only encourage it to proliferate, thus exacerbating the problem of cruelty.

And abuse requires an abuser, a term with heavily implied condemnation. Referring to bestiality as abuse calls those who indulge in it abusers and therefore condemns them.

What if they need help of some sort - bestiality is, in the opinion of most thinking people a dysfunctional type of behaviour? Should it be decriminalised, as you advocate, the signal is sent out that is not in the least problematic - and as I have tried to prove, it is anything but - leading to more suffering all round, as I see it.

Now, if it had provided any grounds on which to refer to the practice of bestiality as abuse, this condemnation would be valid. But we both agree that it did not provide any such grounds.

It did to me. You may choose to ignore informed opinion when it doesn't support your pre-conceptions - but I am much happier to trust that opinion when it comes directly from qualified and experienced professionals, such as a vet.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gem I'm sorry you see it that way, Bacon, especially that I made false generalisations. However, I don't accept the comparison between racist propaganda, which is essentially repulsive, and a fact sheet which only attempts to collate the various effects of bestiality on both 'partners'...

And to falsely generalise them to all cases of bestiality. If there were no agenda or hostility, why would it do this?

Quote by: Gem You must ask yourself why most people feel this way, even members of other minority groups such as myself, because I wouldn't dream of condemning anything unless I was convinced it caused avoidable suffering.

Again, thousands of reasons; none of them valid. And the fact that you are part of a minority doesn’t mean you can’t be bigoted and prejudiced. There is no shortage of homophobic black people.

Quote by: Gem Just saying that there is no specific proof that bestiality does so is besides the point, since I trust my intuition

Just as racists and homophobes trust theirs. Why is your intuition more valid?

Quote by: Gem - and that tells me very clearly that some sort of boundary has been crossed here... Irrational in the strict sense of the word - I daresay - but unless you are saying that intuition and gut feeling are totally redundant things in determining our convictions,

That’s exactly what I’m saying. The idea that different = bad is an intuitive gut feeling for many people. People following intuition and gut feeling while refusing to look at their views critically is exactly the sort of thing which results in the oppression of minority groups, including our own.

Quote by: Gem The only alternative to a blanket opposition to bestiality is for you, or a like-minded person, to come up with a graded scale of injury or distress to the animal, which is ridiculous. At the top end you might have sexual relations with horses or donkeys - (nil point - presumably) - working your way down the scale via large dogs (possibility of rectal damage, infection, causing disturbed behaviour such that the dog is rendered unsafe as a human companion for aggressive behavioural reasons) - then you have to decide what constitutes the cut-off point between a large dog and a small one (unavoidable damage if penetrated) - to cats and smaller animals, where the consequences os sexual abuse would include death, in all probability...what a travesty it would all be, you have to admit.

Why on earth is that so difficult for you to imagine? Bestiality which causes physical injury is wrong; bestiality which does not cause physical injury is not. Just as riding a horse and causing it injury is wrong, whereas riding a horse without causing it injury is not. What’s the problem?

And the fact that you think it’s more practical to make bestiality illegal does not prove your claim. Again, what reason have you to suppose that all acts of bestiality are harmful?

Quote by: Gem Like a man reckless enough to force himself on an animal is going to remember to wear a condom?

Are you going to back up this obviously prejudiced and bigoted statement with anything?

Quote by: Gem besides, most animals might well react violently with teeth and claws, I imagine, which puts the perpetrator at risk as well,

First of all, that’s a consensual risk on his part, so it’s none of your business. Aside from that, your imaginings that most animals would react violently is more uninformed nonsense.

Quote by: Gem Rape can, technically speaking, be practised 'safely' - but the harm it can do can be measured in all sorts of other ways.

Then measure it for bestiality and provide me with it as proof. Until you do, your stance will remain nothing more than bigoted assumptions.

Quote by: Gem Back to the graded scale

It’s hardly a graded scale. There’s already a line between harmful behaviour and harmless behaviour towards animals. You have provided no reason that this cannot be applied to bestiality.

Quote by: Gem again why can't you accept that a practise which causes a human being to put sexual gratification above all considerations of health risks

What makes you think it is done above all considerations for health risks? Proof or reasoning please otherwise it's just another of your many bigoted assumptions.

Quote by: Gem , compassion,

Again, doesn’t apply unless you can prove that bestiality is harmful. Red herring.

Quote by: Gem and, (yes), questions of dignity

Subjective opinion.

Quote by: Gem vets, I don't doubt, have had to deal with physically and mentally damaged pets, for instance - to say nothing of the many more animals that are simply killed after the act –

Again, that applies only to those that do cause harm to the animal. How are their actions connected to the actions of people who practice bestiality without causing harm? Why should the harmful actions of a small section of a minority group decide how that entire group is viewed by society and treated by the law?

Quote by: Gem in keeping with the essentially sadistic and controlling nature of this condition.

Prove that the act is intrinsically sadistic. All you have given me is a correlation between sadism and bestiality. That doesn’t prove that sadists comprise a representative or even significant portion of people who engage in bestiality.

Quote by: Gem Don't rely on me to supply you with appropriate reading matter

You mean don’t rely on you to provide proof of your argument in a debate.

Quote by: Gem Like I said - how many shades of bestiality do you advocate?

If it causes physical injury which would be considered animal cruelty by the existing laws, it’s not ok. If it doesn’t, it is. What’s the problem with that?

Quote by: Gem Besides, If a person is capable of forcing him or herself on an animal, who is to say that they are going to confine themselves to just the one species? What a legal nightmare it would be to juggle all these provisos - more expedient all round to ban bestiality in toto, surely? A person convicted of sex with a horse could always challenge a guilty verdict on the grounds it caused no harm - but what a waste of time and money that would be, not to mention a mockery of the court system. It simply isn't realistic. OK - prosecute under existing laws against animal cruelty, but these are notoriously fickle and difficult to enact.

Then fix them; don’t start putting innocent people in jail. We don't ban all pet ownership on the off-chance that some pet owners might abuse their animals, just as we shouldn't ban bestiality on the off-chance that some zoophiles will cause harm to their animals.

Quote by: Gem Especially so in the case of unwitnessed encounters, and given the probability that a sexually injured animal would be killed on the spot, and the evidence disposed of.

And if the person is willing to do that, they’re not going to be deterred by a law against bestiality. All a bestiality law would achieve over the current system is to jail the harmless ones.

Quote by: Gem Even more importantly, turning a blind eye to bestiality would only encourage it to proliferate, thus exacerbating the problem of cruelty.

How does allowing the people to practice bestiality safely encourage people to practice it unsafely? Does allowing people ride horses encourage people to ride horses into brick walls?

Quote by: Gem What if they need help of some sort - bestiality is, in the opinion of most thinking people a dysfunctional type of behaviour? Should it be decriminalised, as you advocate, the signal is sent out that is not in the least problematic - and as I have tried to prove, it is anything but - leading to more suffering all round, as I see it.

You don’t ban something because it may cause problems. Horse riding can cause injury to the animal if practiced improperly, but we don’t ban it. We prosecute the people who do practice it improperly and we leave those who do practice it properly well alone.

Quote by: Gem It did to me. You may choose to ignore informed opinion when it doesn't support your pre-conceptions - but I am much happier to trust that opinion when it comes directly from qualified and experienced professionals, such as a vet.

Vets have their prejudices too. And the false claims, leaps of logic, biased tone and bigoted generalizations would suggest to me that he is not the most credible of sources.

[GeminiBrian]

The Humane Society of the United States takes the position that all sexual molestation of animals by humans is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.

Zoonoses acquired via sexual contact

Infections that are transmitted from animals to humans are called zoonoses. A few zoonoses may be transferred through casual contact, but others are much more readily transferred by activities that expose humans to the semen, vaginal fluids, urine, saliva, feces and blood of animals. This means that sexual activity with animals is sometimes a high risk activity. It is advisable for practitioners of bestiality to assess their relative risk, since risk varies for each species involved, for each disease mentioned below (and others not mentioned), and for each region in the world. Some of the more common zoonoses are listed at the National Agricultural Safety Database (NASD) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).[1][2]

List of zoonoses

Animal diseases that can be transmitted sexually to humans

(Note: not all diseases listed)
Zoonosis Mode of transmission Carrier species Regions Risky sex acts Fact sheet

Brucellosis semen, vaginal fluids, urine D,E,P,R A,AF,Er,SA,NAr A,B,P,S,V eMedicine
See details below
Leptospirosis
(Weil's disease) semen and urine D,E,P,R,Z W A,P,S eMedicine
Complicated to treat; easily misdiagnosed; requires urgent hospitalization at specialist center
Q fever semen, vaginal fluids, urine C,D,E,P,R W A,B,F,M,P,S,V eMedicine
Treated w/ antibiotics, sometimes long-term; vaccine available in Australia & E. Europe
Rabies saliva C,D,E W (not AUS) B,M CDC
Lethal if untreated; vaccine available (people & animals); post-exposure prophylaxis if exposed
Flea tapeworm saliva[3] C,D W M[3] CDC
Readily treated w/ anti-parasitics
Echinococcosis
(Hydatid disease) fecal-oral C,D,Z W F,M CDC
Surgical removal of tapeworm cyst; possibly fatal if untreated.
Campylobacter fecal-oral B,C,D,P,R,Z W F,M eMedicine
Readily treated w/ specific antibiotics
Cryptosporidium fecal-oral B,C,D,Z W F,M eMedicine
Protozoal infection, usually causes a self-limited diarrhea
Cysticercosis
(Pork tapeworm) fecal-oral P W F CDC
Readily treated w/ anti-parasitics; (rarely) may require surgery (eye, brain)
Giardia fecal-oral C,D,R,Z W F,M CDC
Diarrhea; readily treated w/ anti-protozoal drugs
Salmonella fecal-oral B,C,D,E,P,R,Z W F,M CDC
Self-limited diarrhea, complete recovery usual, rarely causes reactive arthritis
Toxocariasis
(Dog roundworm) fecal-oral C,D W F,M CDC
Treated w/ anti-parasitics; usually benign but may be dangerous (eye)

Zoophilia and health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gem The Humane Society of the United States takes the position that all sexual molestation of animals by humans is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.

The Humane Society of the United States takes a position which is no more valid than your own, Government endorsement doesn't endorse your position. Look back 50 years. Next.

Quote by: Gem Zoonoses acquired via sexual contact Infections that are transmitted from animals to humans are called zoonoses. A few zoonoses may be transferred through casual contact, but others are much more readily transferred by activities that expose humans to the semen, vaginal fluids, urine, saliva, feces and blood of animals. This means that sexual activity with animals is sometimes a high risk activity. It is advisable for practitioners of bestiality to assess their relative risk, since risk varies for each species involved, for each disease mentioned below (and others not mentioned), and for each region in the world. Some of the more common zoonoses are listed at the National Agricultural Safety Database (NASD) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).[1][2] List of zoonoses Animal diseases that can be transmitted sexually to humans (Note: not all diseases listed) Zoonosis Mode of transmission Carrier species Regions Risky sex acts Fact sheet Brucellosis semen, vaginal fluids, urine D,E,P,R A,AF,Er,SA,NAr A,B,P,S,V eMedicine See details below Leptospirosis (Weil's disease) semen and urine D,E,P,R,Z W A,P,S eMedicine Complicated to treat; easily misdiagnosed; requires urgent hospitalization at specialist center Q fever semen, vaginal fluids, urine C,D,E,P,R W A,B,F,M,P,S,V eMedicine Treated w/ antibiotics, sometimes long-term; vaccine available in Australia & E. Europe Rabies saliva C,D,E W (not AUS) B,M CDC Lethal if untreated; vaccine available (people & animals); post-exposure prophylaxis if exposed Flea tapeworm saliva[3] C,D W M[3] CDC Readily treated w/ anti-parasitics Echinococcosis (Hydatid disease) fecal-oral C,D,Z W F,M CDC Surgical removal of tapeworm cyst; possibly fatal if untreated. Campylobacter fecal-oral B,C,D,P,R,Z W F,M eMedicine Readily treated w/ specific antibiotics Cryptosporidium fecal-oral B,C,D,Z W F,M eMedicine Protozoal infection, usually causes a self-limited diarrhea Cysticercosis (Pork tapeworm) fecal-oral P W F CDC Readily treated w/ anti-parasitics; (rarely) may require surgery (eye, brain) Giardia fecal-oral C,D,R,Z W F,M CDC Diarrhea; readily treated w/ anti-protozoal drugs Salmonella fecal-oral B,C,D,E,P,R,Z W F,M CDC Self-limited diarrhea, complete recovery usual, rarely causes reactive arthritis Toxocariasis (Dog roundworm) fecal-oral C,D W F,M CDC Treated w/ anti-parasitics; usually benign but may be dangerous (eye) Zoophilia and health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fact: Bestiality increases the risk of STDs.
Conclusion: bestiality should be condemned and banned.

Fact: AIDS is more likely to be transmitted by anal sex
Fact: anal sex is more likely to be practiced by gays than heterosexuals
Conclusion: Gay sex should be condemned and banned.

Next?

[Occiput]

Quote by: SisterTwisted They are one and the same in the level of depravity. Both have a place in this world. Six feet under. If you arent here to make children, then be abstinent. Who else thinks that Homos and Beasties are one in the same.

If you aren't here to make children, then avoid sexual intercourse? Given a place on this earth is not solely used for reproduction.

I do believe homosexuality and bestiality should be undeniably discharged, but they are two very separate acts of sex. One is the intercourse with a human being and an animal (bestial porn is illegal under current federal obscenity codes.Bestiality is specifically illegal in 30 states. Animal abuse/cruelty laws have been and can be used in all states. In other words, there are NO states where bestiality is legal.) and the other is intercourse with two people of the same sex (which is currently legal).

In retrospect, no bestiality and homosexuality do not correlate in any way, but they are both abominations.

[Jack]

I do believe homosexuality and bestiality should be undeniably discharged

We were enlisted?

they are both abominations.

To whom?

[tinybear]

Well, bestiality is considered an abomination to most people in the community. Hence it is unlawful. Homosexuality used to be in the same position, but in recent years it has ceased to be so, but still considered something which deviates from the normal lifestyle of the majority in the community. Hence it has been decriminalized, but still not considered in the same light as heterosexual behavior. I think that sums it up.

[Occiput]

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
—Genesis 1:27