Bestiality and Homosexuality go hand in hand

[princessme23]

What different reason?

To be offensive towards homosexuals.
Generally if you are opening a debate you dont used words like depraved, either it was badly worded or delibrately write in away as to cause offensive.
im not gay so im not offended but i can see a jab at something when its in my face.
I think bacon worded it better in the long run.

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: tinybear Don't listen to him Bacon. I appreciate your efforts in clarifying what I said.

You admit that clarification was neccessary then?

Gem, it's not a question of whether I 'sympathise' with gays. I'm sure this debate is not about whether gays should have 'sympathy' from the rest of the population

Who suggested we want it?

This debate is about whether or not sex with someone of the same gender is comparable to sex with animals. Now of course they are two different things, but is the difference a difference in nature or in degree.

Am I correct?

Can't really say - you merely asked a question - and did not made a statement we can either agree or disagree with, so you can't be either correct or incorrect.

[tinybear]

Gemini, clarification was necessary, but not because what I said was not clear enough or ambiguous. It was necessary because you jumped to the wrong conclusion.

[Cruella]

That'll do. Let's stick to debating the topic, please.

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Well, unprecedented as it is, you have totally misinterpreted what was said. There's no need to read everything as an attack on gays.

OK. Try saying something positive about gays for once... just to indulge me.

Really, you should know by now that I'm not judgemental when it comes to people's personal lives.

With the notable exception of effeminate men, of course.

Big deal. Homosexuality is taboo in many cultures.

Particularly in Scotland, if you are to be believed.

What? No one said only gays can be zoophiles.

In the context, that clearly seems to be the covert implication.

I said having sex with an animal is, morally, no worse than having sex with someone of the same sex (or indeed opposite sex, though that's not the topic). There's nothing wrong with either of them, but there are often taboos against them both.

A taboo that's perfectly justified in the case of animals.

Like I said, the relationships are totally different. But the actual sexual acts are analagous. Both are harmless sexual practices which aren't enjoyed by the majority.

Harmless? If a small animal dies as a result of a sexual assault by a human male - that is harmless? Or is it that respecting an animal's right not to be tortured doesn't matter? The law disagrees with you, and long may it continue to do so.

For you. Same way most straight guys would find sex with another man unthinkable.

Having sex with another member of your own species and gender is not unthinkable, as history proves over and over - but bestiality has a significant ethical difference, in that it can always be described in every case as an abuse of the animal.

Killing animals for food may be justified as a necessity by many, but it is rightly illegal to torment them whilst they are still alive. However, to subject them to pain during a sexual act is condemned by all (or should be) - and even if the animal has no specific right in this matter - it degrades the human who puts his perverted tastes into practice... No argument.

I know you say this last judgement may be applied by some to gay sex, but that is a matter of education regarding human sexuality, since it is a misguided attitude. The fact that the basic physical acts might be comparable is as far as it goes - and you shouldn't extrapolate from that the conclusion that bestiality is merely a variation on permissible sexual activity.

Given your habitual dislike of boundaries, Bacon, it is almost impossible for me to prove to you why bestiality is wrong. Such proof relies on you having the universal sense of distaste and outrage which this practice provokes. It goes beyond the 'icky' factor quoted many times on this thread in relation to gays - way beyond - and unlike this attitude to gay sex, the prejudice against bestiality is not amenable to education - and nor should it be - it is disrespect, pure and simple.

So your entire argument against bestiality in all its forms is that it would be harmful to penetrate a hamster? How exactly does this apply to real life?

Don't attempt to cheapen the argument - you know perfectly well what I meant.

Consent isn't an issue with animals. If it was, having pets and riding horses would be equivalent to slavery.

Another fatuous comparison: -- no, Bacon - animals can't give their consent to anything - but that is no reason to exploit them in ways that causes them suffering, as a sexual act would in nearly all cases. Domesticated pets and horses are legally immune from cruelty, thankfully - (at least here and in America) - so don't pretend that riding a horse or petting a dog is remotely equivalent to bestiality. To treat wild animals in such a way is no less cruel.

What I did compare is the actual sexual acts.

I don't know where you want to go with this, to be honest, unless it's another attempt to demonstrate how wonderfully unconstrained your thinking is across the board. Looks to me as if you would defend absolutely any practice, provided it was controversial enough - but that's only my impression, and probably originates from the blood-sports debate where we disagreed so vehemently.

I hardly think it's my problem if your prejudiced sensibilities are offended.

Maybe not - providing your motive isn't entirely to cause gratuitous offence...

[AgnostFor]

Animals can be gay, so do they go to hell?

[tinybear]

Yes, but that has nothing to do with being gay. Heterosexuals go to hell too, you know.

[Walrus]

Quote by: princessme23 To be offensive towards homosexuals. Generally if you are opening a debate you dont used words like depraved, either it was badly worded or delibrately write in away as to cause offensive. im not gay so im not offended but i can see a jab at something when its in my face. I think bacon worded it better in the long run.

I agree that the motivation behind this thread is simply to be offensive to gays. I can't see any comparison between homosexuality and bestiality apart from the fact that both are result of a sexual attraction which is unlikely to result in procreation, but that also goes for a lot of heterosexual behaviour.

[Walrus]

Quote by: AgnostFor Animals can be gay, so do they go to hell?

Hell could be full of gay penguins.

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Male penguins raise adopted chick

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gem OK. Try saying something positive about gays for once... just to indulge me.

Already did in the gay marriage thread.

Quote by: Gem With the notable exception of effeminate men, of course.

A) disliking someone's company is not the same thing as judging them and B) someone's company is by definition a part of their public lives; not private.

Quote by: Gem Particularly in Scotland, if you are to be believed.

I'm not the one who believes life is so hard for gay people.

Quote by: Gem In the context, that clearly seems to be the covert implication.

Despite the context having been explained to you several times. There's none so blind.

Quote by: Gem A taboo that's perfectly justified in the case of animals.

Why?

Quote by: Gem Harmless? If a small animal dies as a result of a sexual assault by a human male - that is harmless? Or is it that respecting an animal's right not to be tortured doesn't matter?

Quite apart from the fact that there are already laws seperate from bestiality laws which prevent animal torture, why are you so determined to focus on small animals? The vast majority of bestiality cases I've heard about have involved horses and dogs. I've never heard of anyone having sex with a hamster.

So how about you focus on the real world, as you're so often telling me to do.

Quote by: Gem The law disagrees with you

Big deal.

Quote by: Gem Having sex with another member of your own species and gender is not unthinkable, as history proves over and over - but bestiality has a significant ethical difference, in that it can always be described in every case as an abuse of the animal.

Prove it.

Quote by: Gem Killing animals for food may be justified as a necessity by many, but it is rightly illegal to torment them whilst they are still alive. However, to subject them to pain during a sexual act

What has that got to do with bestiality?

Quote by: Gem - it degrades the human who puts his perverted tastes into practice..

Bigoted subjective nonsense. .

Quote by: Gem I know you say this last judgement may be applied by some to gay sex, but that is a matter of education regarding human sexuality, since it is a misguided attitude. The fact that the basic physical acts might be comparable is as far as it goes - and you shouldn't extrapolate from that the conclusion that bestiality is merely a variation on permissible sexual activity. Given your habitual dislike of boundaries, Bacon, it is almost impossible for me to prove to you why bestiality is wrong.

Prove that it's harmful and I'll accept your argument that it's wrong. If you can't prove this, you are simply arguing an ick factor, no matter how you try to dress it up.

Quote by: Gem Don't attempt to cheapen the argument - you know perfectly well what I meant.

You said hamsters. The most you could have meant was animals of a comparable size to hamsters. What about the larger and far more common animals involved?

Quote by: Gem Another fatuous comparison: -- no, Bacon - animals can't give their consent to anything - but that is no reason to exploit them in ways that causes them suffering, as a sexual act would in nearly all cases.

Prove it.

Quote by: Gem I don't know where you want to go with this, to be honest, unless it's another attempt to demonstrate how wonderfully unconstrained your thinking is across the board. Looks to me as if you would defend absolutely any practice, provided it was controversial enough -

Or harmless. The controversy is incidental.

Quote by: Gem Maybe not - providing your motive isn't entirely to cause gratuitous offence...

The only ones here with cause to be offended are any zoophiles subjected to your bigotry.

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Already did in the gay marriage thread.

The thread where you joined forces with the resident bigots, you mean?

A) disliking someone's company is not the same thing as judging them and B) someone's company is by definition a part of their public lives; not private.

Of course you judge them - why else would they irritate you so much? some men (not always gay, by the way) can be more feminine than most women - agreed - but unlike you, I don't let that prejudice me against them just because they don't conform to my ideal. Try regarding ALL people as individuals, (gender and mannerisms apart) - and it might broaden your mind. Merely being irritated by someone different to yourself is a poor excuse to avoid their company at all costs - there is value in all of us, if you care to look for it.

In order to merit your time, people have to behave in certain ways, and I guess that would go for me if I happened to walk into your favourite pub, unless I toned myself down to fit your criteria. If you were to be embarrassed by me - who's problem is that?

Talk about throw the baby out with the bathwater - or should that be living in an ivory tower?

I'm not the one who believes life is so hard for gay people.

Did I say that? - I'm quite happy where I am, by and large - I can't say I would be if I lived in some part of the States - say, California. There I would be second-class citizen.

Despite the context having been explained to you several times. There's none so blind.

Pot calling kettle, maybe, porky?

Why? (is bestiality taboo)

Like I said, your social parameters are markedly different to most people's, (which is not a criticism) - but being so allergic to boundaries of all sorts sometimes leads you (IMO) to forget that your thinking is so radical on some issues as to be seen as anarchic.

Such is the case with regard to your defence of bestiality - you can argue till you are blue in the face that animals are not harmed by it and that humans are not degraded by it, but you will always be a lone voice bleating in the wilderness as far as 99% of the population is concerned. Like me, they see this practice as a perversion to be resisted, which may be (to you) a highly subjective view, but is based nonetheless on a deeply-ingrained perception that such acts are repulsive.

OK. don't bother throwing that old line at me that many people regard homosexuality in a similar light - for there IS a difference between copulating with your own kind, (where it is consensual) and doing so with a dumb animal. Why? because the former is pleasurable to both parties, for one thing, and that is an ethical consideration you shouldn't dismiss too lightly. The animal, by contrast, has to be raped - something I find repulsive even if you don't. Yes, animals are exploited in all kinds of ways - but in a civilised society even circus acts involving performing animals are seen as degrading - not that you would agree, of course.

Quite apart from the fact that there are already laws seperate from bestiality laws which prevent animal torture, why are you so determined to focus on small animals? The vast majority of bestiality cases I've heard about have involved horses and dogs. I've never heard of anyone having sex with a hamster.

In my original post I judiciously replaced 'horse' or 'pony' with hamster so as not to appear too boastful re the damage an act of penetration on my part would cause the animal. But the principle is the same ...

So how about you focus on the real world, as you're so often telling me to do.

I would if it wasn't so boring.

Quote by: Gem Killing animals for food may be justified as a necessity by many, but it is rightly illegal to torment them whilst they are still alive. However, to subject them to pain during a sexual act

What has that got to do with bestiality?

Which part don't you understand?

Quote by: Gem - it degrades the human who puts his perverted tastes into practice..

Prove that it's harmful and I'll accept your argument that it's wrong. If you can't prove this, you are simply arguing an ick factor, no matter how you try to dress it up.

How do you propose I do that? try watching a film (I'm sure such exist) and tell me that you don't feel shame for the human and pity for the animal. And to pre-empt you saying that some would have the same reaction to gay porn - the difference is that pity for the actors is misplaced, as long as it is legitimate, ordinary porn, where the actors are paid a small fortune, I'm told... I don't suppose the unfortunate dog or donkey is on anybody's payroll.

Quote by: Gem Another fatuous comparison: -- no, Bacon - animals can't give their consent to anything - but that is no reason to exploit them in ways that causes them suffering, as a sexual act would in nearly all cases.

Prove it.

No need to, beyond what I've already said.

Or harmless.

OK - how about you prove that bestiality is harmless, and we'll take it from there.

The only ones here with cause to be offended are any zoophiles subjected to your bigotry.

In this case I am happy to be called a bigot.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: gem The thread where you joined forces with the resident bigots, you mean?

Anything relevant to add to the discussion?

Quote by: Gem Of course you judge them - why else would they irritate you so much?

Same reason anything irritates anyone. If you are irritated by someone with an annoying laugh, does that mean you are judging them as a bad person?

Quote by: Gem some men (not always gay, by the way) can be more feminine than most women - agreed - but unlike you, I don't let that prejudice me against them just because they don't conform to my ideal. Try regarding ALL people as individuals, (gender and mannerisms apart) - and it might broaden your mind.

Nobody likes everyone equally. A person's actions, personality and mannerisms determine how they are viewed by others. With any given person, some people will take to them and some won't. It just happens that I don't take to camp people.

Quote by: Gem Merely being irritated by someone different to yourself is a poor excuse to avoid their company at all costs -

So I should make an effort to spend time with people who irritate me? What exaclty would that achieve?

Quote by: Gem In order to merit your time, people have to behave in certain ways

Same goes for everyone. I'm sure you have your own criteria for what makes enjoyable company. I assume you wouldn't go out of your way to spend time with someone you found boring or irritating.

Quote by: Gem If you were to be embarrassed by me - who's problem is that?

Again, mine as I already said. You're free to act as you please, but I'm not going to pretend it doesn't cause any problems.

Quote by: Gem Did I say that?

You claimed that gay people are very likely to be rejected by their familiea and by society at large. I make no such claim. That would suggest to me that wherever you live is much more hotile to gays than where I live.

Quote by: Gem Pot calling kettle, maybe, porky?

I don't believe I've jumped to any false conclusions about your stance.

Quote by: Gem Like I said, your social parameters are markedly different to most people's, (which is not a criticism) - but being so allergic to boundaries of all sorts sometimes leads you (IMO) to forget that your thinking is so radical on some issues as to be seen as anarchic. Such is the case with regard to your defence of bestiality - you can argue till you are blue in the face that animals are not harmed by it and that humans are not degraded by it, but you will always be a lone voice bleating in the wilderness as far as 99% of the population is concerned. Like me, they see this practice as a perversion to be resisted, which may be (to you) a highly subjective view, but is based nonetheless on a deeply-ingrained perception that such acts are repulsive.

I didn't ask why bestiality is a taboo; I asked why it should be. An irrational prejudice and hatred does not seem like a valid reason to judge someone.

Quote by: Gem OK. don't bother throwing that old line at me that many people regard homosexuality in a similar light - for there IS a difference between copulating with your own kind, (where it is consensual) and doing so with a dumb animal. Why? because the former is pleasurable to both parties, for one thing,

How do you know it's not pleasurable for the animals?

Quote by: Gem and that is an ethical consideration you shouldn't dismiss too lightly. The animal, by contrast, has to be raped -

No it hasn't; not unless you believe that your pets have been enslaved. You are selectively applying human values to animals in order to justify your irrational bigotry.

Quote by: Gem In my original post I judiciously replaced 'horse' or 'pony' with hamster so as not to appear too boastful re the damage an act of penetration on my part would cause the animal. But the principle is the same ...

Is it? Does penetrating a horse cause it any damage? Evidence please.

Quote by: Gem Which part don't you understand?

Why you are linking pain to bestiaity.

Quote by: Gem How do you propose I do that? try watching a film (I'm sure such exist) and tell me that you don't feel shame for the human and pity for the animal.

Seen it and I didn't.

Quote by: Gem And to pre-empt you saying that some would have the same reaction to gay porn - the difference is that pity for the actors is misplaced,

Unless you can prove that the animals involved bestiality are suffering, your pity is also misplaced.

Quote by: Gem as long as it is legitimate, ordinary porn, where the actors are paid a small fortune, I'm told... I don't suppose the unfortunate dog or donkey is on anybody's payroll.

Just as housepets and horses are not. Does that mean they're being enslaved?

Quote by: Gem OK - how about you prove that bestiality is harmless, and we'll take it from there.

How about you stop asking me to prove a negative and prove your own argument. My stance is non-judgemental; yours is judgemental. You're the one in need of proof.

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Anything relevant to add to the discussion?

Only a relative maturity on my part.

Same reason anything irritates anyone. If you are irritated by someone with an annoying laugh, does that mean you are judging them as a bad person?

False comparison: you can be irritated by an annoying mannerism, sure, but don't you ever look beyond the surface? Yours is a blanket dismissal it seems. If you allow yourself to reject people on the basis of a silly laugh, you will never find out the really important things about them. I guess this doesn't bother you, but then, you never claimed to be interested in what makes people tick. It matters to some of us - it's called intellectual curiosity.

Nobody likes everyone equally. A person's actions, personality and mannerisms determine how they are viewed by others. With any given person, some people will take to them and some won't. It just happens that I don't take to camp people.

Sonart, a straight guy, doesn't have a problem with camp individuals - he takes them in his stride as far as I can see. I guess you being gay puts a different complexion on things, so it can only be your identification of yourself on some common level with such people that is at the root of your dislike. If you were straight, I doubt very much if you would be so bothered by how some gays behave - that much is pretty transparent to me, even if you explain it differently to yourself.

So I should make an effort to spend time with people who irritate me? What exaclty would that achieve?

No, of course not, but it goes beyond irritation - unless I'm totally mistaken - or at least your irritation is laced with some emotional baggage about being gay that you have never resolved in your own head. You don't claim to be in any way irritated by the irrational dislike of gays that your hetero drinking-partners display, or the put-downs, or the silly jokes, or their barely-concealed hostility to anything different... of course not... they are the salt of the earth in your estimation, and can do no wrong. This bias is very telling, don't you think? I'd call all this a desperate search for 'normality' and a hollow affirmation of your acceptability - if I knew you better, but of course - I don't, so I won't say it.

Same goes for everyone. I'm sure you have your own criteria for what makes enjoyable company. I assume you wouldn't go out of your way to spend time with someone you found boring or irritating.

I'm engaging with YOU on this thread and others. aren't I???

Enjoyment comes in many forms - and even if I don't find you enjoyable company, I can enjoy pitching my wits against yours... Why should real life be different - challenging people are usually more satisfying to spend time with - you wouldn't catch me discussing football or racing with the local stalwarts over a leisurely pint as a means of passing the time - but I guess we're entirely different in this respect as in so many others. I enjoy something a bit more stimulating as a rule.

Again, mine as I already said. You're free to act as you please, but I'm not going to pretend it doesn't cause any problems.

Maybe it's not a real problem, but one of your own making?

I don't believe I've jumped to any false conclusions about your stance.

Believe me, you have - and often.

I didn't ask why bestiality is a taboo; I asked why it should be. An irrational prejudice and hatred does not seem like a valid reason to judge someone.

I think I explained quite clearly why this is - and should be - a taboo...

Call it an irrational prejudice if you must, but bestiality, along with paedophilia, is something that human beings INSTINCTIVELY detest, and as such has no argument going for it -- unlike, say, gay relationships, where such detestation is easily overcome with rational thought. Gay relationships arise from an in-born sexual preference - but not so bestiality - which is nothing more than an acquired taste... so if it can be shown to be unhealthy for both man and beast (as it undoubtedly is) - condemnation of it is entirely rational.

How do you know it's not pleasurable for the animals?

That's almost as silly as saying that infants might enjoy the sexual attentions of a full-grown man. Anyway, it's quite besides the point - such a taste degrades the human practitioner, who is either wildly over-sexed, or needs help in forming relationships with other people (and it is rightly seen as being insulting to the animal)... In either case, bestiality is never going to be the acceptable solution, however you justify it... Some things in this life are, by their perverted nature, simply 'wrong', and therefore damaging.

Is it? Does penetrating a horse cause it any damage? Evidence please.

Like I said - it is the act of a damaged human being, regardless of the effect on the horse - and to stand aside and let this violation take place is not ultimately the kindest thing one can do for this person. He will most certainly have issues and problems with sex that are not going to be resolved by fooking an animal. That is not being judgmental.

Why you are linking pain to bestiality... Seen it and I didn't (feel shame or pity)...

Good for you, Bacon. I don't condemn you for failing to find such films revolting, but I do pity you if you actually found them enjoyable.

Unless you can prove that the animals involved bestiality are suffering, your pity is also misplaced.

That they don't suffer is, at best, an uneducated assumption on your part. Neither you nor I can say with certainty just how perceptive an animal is, or whether it has the capacity to feel violated and abused. Until we can deny this with certainty, it is arrogance on your part to automatically assume that a sentient creature is devoid of such feelings. One step further and you will echo Descartes, who insisted that animals were mere unconscious machines which could not even feel pain. He was, of course, proved entirely wrong.

But then, just as you said in reference to blood-sports "does it matter what the animal feels about being tormented anyway, since it havs no rights" - (or words to that effect) - so it is pointless trying to convince you.

My stance is non-judgemental; yours is judgemental. You're the one in need of proof.

Once again, Bacon - we are not in a region where categorical proof is easily forthcoming, so we will have to proceed on the basis of ethics, and other considerations that require more imagination than logic - possibly not your strongest area, IMO.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gem False comparison: you can be irritated by an annoying mannerism, sure, but don't you ever look beyond the surface? Yours is a blanket dismissal it seems. If you allow yourself to reject people

If someone's entire manner is something which annoys me, how am I supposed to enjoy their company? It doesn't matter how deep I look into their other qualities; annoying is annoying

Quote by: Gem Sonart, a straight guy, doesn't have a problem with camp individuals - he takes them in his stride as far as I can see. I guess you being gay puts a different complexion on things, so it can only be your identification of yourself on some common level with such people that is at the root of your dislike.

That's the only possible explanation? Or is it the only explanation that fits with your half-baked, unsupported, pseudo-psychological theories? There are a plethora of differences between Sonart and myself. Putting my dislike of campness down to any one of these is the worst of bad science.

Quote by: Gem If you were straight, I doubt very much if you would be so bothered by how some gays behave - that much is pretty transparent to me

May I have an outline of your qualifications and professional experience in psychology, as well as a copy of your extensive evaluation and case history of me?

Quote by: Gem No, of course not, but it goes beyond irritation - unless I'm totally mistaken - or at least your irritation is laced with some emotional baggage about being gay that you have never resolved in your own head. You don't claim to be in any way irritated by the irrational dislike of gays that your hetero drinking-partners display,

Of course I didn't state explicitly that I don't like having assumptions made about me on the basis of my sexuality. I thought that was a given.

Quote by: Gem or the put-downs, or the silly jokes, or their barely-concealed hostility to anything different... of course not...

I don't see a joke as hostility. I make jokes about my friends' preferences and quirks as well.

Quote by: Gem they are the salt of the earth in your estimation, and can do no wrong.

Salt of the Earth? You seem to be overestimating my esteem for these people. They're people I occasionally find myself drinking with; not my close friends.

Quote by: Gem This bias is very telling, don't you think? I'd call all this a desperate search for 'normality' and a hollow affirmation of your acceptability - if I knew you better, but of course - I don't, so I won't say it.

No, you'll just heavily imply it.

Quote by: Gem Enjoyment comes in many forms - and even if I don't find you enjoyable company, I can enjoy pitching my wits against yours... Why should real life be different - challenging people are usually more satisfying to spend time with - you wouldn't catch me discussing football or racing with the local stalwarts over a leisurely pint as a means of passing the time - but I guess we're entirely different in this respect as in so many others. I enjoy something a bit more stimulating as a rule.

You mean that you find different things stimulating. If I were as much of a bumbling amatuer psychologist as you seem to be, I would call it pretty telling that you feel the need to elevate your personal preferences above those of other people.

Quote by: Gem Maybe it's not a real problem, but one of your own making?

It's the fault of the people who generalise and assume that gay = camp. That includes my drinking buddies and, apparently, yourself. But once again, high profile 'queens' like the one in this case don't help.

Quote by: Gem Believe me

I don't.

Quote by: Gem I think I explained quite clearly why this is - and should be - a taboo...

All I see is an entirely unsupported assumption that it's harmful.

Quote by: Gem Call it an irrational prejudice if you must, but bestiality, along with paedophilia, is something that human beings INSTINCTIVELY detest, and as such has no argument going for it -- unlike, say, gay relationships, where such detestation is easily overcome with rational thought.

Prove that the same isn't the case for bestiality and that you're not making a false distinction. The only tangible thing you've given me is that more people dislike bestiality than homosexuality. You haven't proved that there's any qualitative difference.

Quote by: Gem Gay relationships arise from an in-born sexual preference - but not so bestiality - which is nothing more than an acquired taste...

Prove it.

Quote by: Gem so if it can be shown to be unhealthy for both man and beast

Which is what I'm asking you to prove. Prove doesn't mean assume.

Quote by: Gem That's almost as silly as saying that infants might enjoy the sexual attentions of a full-grown man. Anyway, it's quite besides the point - such a taste degrades the human practitioner

So you dismiss the argument and simply repeat your assertion? Brilliant debate.

Quote by: Gem who is either wildly over-sexed, or needs help in forming relationships with other people

Prove it.

Quote by: Gem (and it is rightly seen as being insulting to the animal)..

Prove that animals can feel insulted and that bestiality induces this feeling.

Quote by: Gem . In either case, bestiality is never going to be the acceptable solution, however you justify it... Some things in this life are, by their perverted nature, simply 'wrong', and therefore damaging.

Not debate.
.

Quote by: Gem Like I said - it is the act of a damaged human being

You also said it causes the animal suffering. Prove it; don't change the subject.

Quote by: Gem , regardless of the effect on the horse - and to stand aside and let this violation take place is not ultimately the kindest thing one can do for this person. He will most certainly have issues and problems with sex that are not going to be resolved by fooking an animal.

Prove it.

Quote by: Gem Good for you, Bacon. I don't condemn you for failing to find such films revolting, but I do pity you if you actually found them enjoyable.

Didn't do much for me. And I very much doubt you feel an ounce of pity for these 'people you have consistently referred to as perverts.

Quote by: Gem That they don't suffer is, at best, an uneducated assumption on your part. Neither you nor I can say with certainty just how perceptive an animal is, or whether it has the capacity to feel violated and abused. Until we can deny this with certainty, it is arrogance on your part to automatically assume that a sentient creature is devoid of such feelings.

I didn't assume they don't suffer; I asked you to prove that they do. Since you can't, your assumption is as unfounded as the assumption that it isn't harmful. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and not to assume the worst of peope.

Quote by: Gem But then, just as you said in reference to blood-sports "does it matter what the animal feels about being tormented anyway, since it havs no rights" - (or words to that effect)

Lying is also not a brilliant debate tactic.

Quote by: Gem Once again, Bacon - we are not in a region where categorical proof is easily forthcoming, so we will have to proceed on the basis of ethics, and other considerations that require more imagination than logic

In other words, you can't prove your claims.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy In other words, you can't prove your claims.

And you'd be foolish to expect me too. If you want to go off on a metaphysical tangent and debate this in terms of the existence of absolute good and evil, you are very welcome to do so.

For my part, i don't even enjoy exploring this sordid subject in any depth, and I feel that I have put my case quite cogently already (despite your constant jibes). So if you remain unconvinced, and keep insisting on proof of how animals feel, which you know perfectly well is unprovable, I can only conclude that you are attempting to win this argument by forcing me into looking ill-informed whilst knowing perfectly well that no data on animal's reaction to sexual abuse exists.

I have based my main position on the only grounds available to me, which you readily dismiss as merely subjective, but I shouldn't be surprised, since you habitually disparage any conviction that comes from the heart as being less than worthless...

However, you, in turn, will never convince me that subjective feelings should never play a vital part in human reasoning, especially in subjects that require ALL the factors to be taken into consideration, and not just cold logic - unsupported by the innate human feelings gained from an experience of living in this world. You clearly attach no value to these subtle factors, which is probably why you have convinced yourself that you always get the better of people in debate. A pyrrhic victory at the best of times, looked at in the round, as it utilises nothing but a crude tunnel-vision.

Even when I suggested that a person who is drawn to bestiality probably needs help to come to terms with such a compulsion, you failed to acknowledge that as a valid observation. Nor did you counter that view by saying why such help to better relate to other humans, and not animals, was not needed. I was relying on that to show that an attraction which deflects from the true underlying problem is not something to be advocated - and in that sense, makes bestiality ethically indefensible. So you might have been expected to at least argue that such help wasn't needed, but you didn't, because you can't.

Needless to say, where homosexuality between consenting human partners is concerned, it is relatively easy to demonstrate that it is indeed harmless, and even beneficial to society at large.

Sex with animals falls into a totally different bracket, and you will have to try a lot harder to demonstrate that it is a harmless practice, and not simply rely on keep saying that there is no proof that it is harmful, and then taunting your opponent into providing it - which is all we have seen from you so far, which I call devious.

That is a very weak tactic, IMO, Bacon, and will lead to no resolution because your position is essentially non-falsifiable, like so many other spurious assertions.

[Stevejavson]

Christianity and Scientology are the same. They are both religions and they both have churches. Christianity and Scientology go hand in hand.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Stevejavson Christianity and Scientology are the same. They are both religions and they both have churches. Christianity and Scientology go hand in hand.

And the relevance of this to the OP is?

[Stevejavson]

Quote by: GeminiBrian And the relevance of this to the OP is?

It's a false statement based on over generalizing two different things and linking them together. Just like the OP.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Stevejavson It's a false statement based on over generalizing two different things and linking them together. Just like the OP.

I see.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gem And you'd be foolish to expect me too.

I suppose I do have enough experience debating with you to know you don't offer proof for any of your claims.

Quote by: Gem If you want to go off on a metaphysical tangent and debate this in terms of the existence of absolute good and evil, you are very welcome to do so.

Uh, what? I'm asking you to prove that it causes the animals suffering. So prove it.

Quote by: Gem For my part, i don't even enjoy exploring this sordid subject in any depth,

Funny that you only realise this when someone asks you to prove your claims.

Quote by: Gem I have put my case quite cogently already

All you lack is a scrap of evidence.

Quote by: Gem So if you remain unconvinced, and keep insisting on proof of how animals feel, which you know perfectly well is unprovable, I can only conclude that you are attempting to win this argument by forcing me into looking ill-informed whilst knowing perfectly well that no data on animal's reaction to sexual abuse exists.

If no proof of the claim exists, you shouldn't make the claim.

Quote by: Gem I have based my main position on the only grounds available to me, which you readily dismiss as merely subjective, but I shouldn't be surprised, since you habitually disparage any conviction that comes from the heart as being less than worthless... However, you, in turn, will never convince me that subjective feelings should never play a vital part in human reasoning, especially in subjects that require ALL the factors to be taken into consideration, and not just cold logic - unsupported by the innate human feelings gained from an experience of living in this world. You clearly attach no value to these subtle factors, which is probably why you have convinced yourself that you always get the better of people in debate. A pyrrhic victory at the best of times, looked at in the round, as it utilises nothing but a crude tunnel-vision.

We've been through this. You can't debate feelings. You say you feel something is wrong. I say I feel it isn't. What is there to debate?

And we both know that feelings are not always right, regardless of how many people share them. Look at homosexuality. No matter how many differences you can come up with between bestiality and homosexualuty, people's past attitudes towards homosexuals prove that society's feelings on people's sexual preferences can be wrong.

Quote by: Gem Even when I suggested that a person who is drawn to bestiality probably needs help to come to terms with such a compulsion, you failed to acknowledge that as a valid observation. Nor did you counter that view by saying why such help to better relate to other humans, and not animals, was not needed.

I don't need to. You don't give people help to relate to other humans by default; you have to prove or at least provide reasoning that they actually have trouble relating to other humans.

Quote by: Gem I was relying on that to show that an attraction which deflects from the true underlying problem is not something to be advocated - and in that sense, makes bestiality ethically indefensible. So you might have been expected to at least argue that such help wasn't needed, but you didn't, because you can't.

The idea that people need help relating to other human beings is not my default position.

Quote by: Gem Needless to say, where homosexuality between consenting human partners is concerned, it is relatively easy to demonstrate that it is indeed harmless, and even beneficial to society at large. Sex with animals falls into a totally different bracket, and you will have to try a lot harder to demonstrate that it is a harmless practice, and not simply rely on keep saying that there is no proof that it is harmful,

So you assume that something is harmful unless proven otherwise? Should everything be banned or frowned upon by default?