Bestiality and Homosexuality go hand in hand

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: tinybear And, look at it this way, they were lots of gays in Sodom and Gommorah, right? Right. And God razed the two cities to the ground nonetheless, right? Right. So, apparently, God didn't think of gays as a means of population control, as otherwise gays would have been spared. Ya see what I'm saying?

No, how does a primitive story of superstitious nonsense and dubious morality relate to the question of homosexuality in modern times.
If your thinking along the lines that christian bigotry is of any use then think again. The sooner people stop using such stories to teach morality , the better.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gem Right - you mean my world isn't autistically black and white,

Wanting someone to prove their claim that someone is harmful is indicative of autism? Guess the entire legal system was drawn up by some pretty severe autistics then.

Quote by: Gem Please stop reading only every other paragraph of mine - I went to great lengths to establish that we are not in an area where proof is available,

Then don’t make any claims about it.

Quote by: Gem Why not? is it illegal to speculate? ,

Nope, just stupid if you have no evidence or reasoning on which to base your speculation. Also, a definite claim is not speculation.

Quote by: Gem Is it against the rules to discuss the relevant possibilities like adults? ,

You didn’t discuss the possibilities; you made a definitive claim, several times. Prove it.

Quote by: Gem Black and white again - your speciality. You stick to bald statements if you like, I am free to read between the lines as much as I like - that's where the real interest lies. ,

How about you address specifically what was written, instead of making inane, generalised statements about seeing the world in black and white. How is it possible to establish anything in a debate if both sides are operating on their gut feelings; not on reasoning, logic or evidence?

Quote by: Gem I was under the impression that I had addressed myself to the fundamental differences at some length - you really expect me to repeat myself? Homosexuals have tongues in their mouths, and can convince their detractors with direct testimony that what they allege about gay relationships is demonstrably wrong, straight from the horse's mouth, as it were (pardon the bad metaphor) - but a real horse, sheep, dog or goat can offer no testimony - a big difference, IMO.

But we weren’t talking about testimony; we were talking about your argument that some things are ‘just wrong’ because there is a near universal distaste for them. This argument, as I have just shown, is not valid.

Quote by: Gem I have never known anybody attracted to bestiality, but if someone of this persuasion were to introduce themselves to me. I guess my immediate reaction would be to think 1: how could you do this to an animal?... and (probably) 2: how can you do this to yourself? Whether it's ultimately a damaging practice or not, that person is going to face a great deal of hostility - and may well not be mentally strong enough to cope with this hostility on their own - very possibly resulting in unhappiness and anxiety. ,

Depends if they decide to broadcast it. People don’t generally introduce themselves by listing their sexual likes and dislikes. Most people keep that private.

And again, the same could be said for homosexuals.

Quote by: Gem Nor mine. But if they find a goat more attractive than a human being, is it unreasonable to suppose that they have their wires slightly crossed? ,

Without any other evidence or knowledge of the person, yes it is. You’re not an expert on sexuality. You don’t know its roots, its effect on other aspects of a person or its effects on the person’s life.

And it’s ridiculous to say that an attraction to something non-human is either harmful or indicative of sexual confusion. Should people with other sexual fixations on inanimate objects (shoes for example) be judged and condemned by you?

Quote by: Gem Unlike homosexuality, there is no clinical evidence that I am aware of that suggests anybody's brain is hard-wired to find animals attractive, and in the absence of such, my intuition that bestiality is a pathological condition as opposed to a natural inclination is just as valid as your contrary view. ,

I don’t have a contrary view; I’m not arrogant enough form views on subjects about which I know nothing. I don’t know whether it’s innate or acquired, and frankly I don’t see how it makes any difference to how it should be viewed by society.

You, on the other hand, have formed and made very clear your views on bestiality. You have claimed that it causes suffering to the animal in all cases and that it is harmful to the human. That’s a serious allegation to make about an entire group of people, so I suggest you start looking for some proof.

Quote by: Gem As things stand, neither of us can prove anything,

And only one of us needs to prove anything. In the absence of any evidence, people are assumed to be sane, harmless and innocent by default. If you want to claim otherwise, you need evidence.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: princessme23 how do you know thats all nature has intended for us regarding population control? Being gay is obviously going to keep a tiny amount of the population down, I see that as good thing!

Trouble is, Princess, many of the best and nicest people (like me) never get to pass on their genes...

[GeminiBrian]

I thought this was a debate forum and not court of law, Bacon - I think you have got the two badly mixed up. I am not on trial here, please remember that.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: tinybear And, look at it this way, they were lots of gays in Sodom and Gommorah, right? Right. And God razed the two cities to the ground nonetheless, right? Right. So, apparently, God didn't think of gays as a means of population control, as otherwise gays would have been spared. Ya see what I'm saying?

What exactly ARE you saying tinybear?

Whatever it is, I can't see your motive in backing it up with Old Testament gobbledegook - very odd.

This is not cultural diversity we're looking at here. It's a difference in sexual orientation and personal lifestyle.

Culture defines more things than just ethnicity - that's the point you fail to grasp.

Totally different kettle of fish.

That depends on which method you use to stick labels on people who differ from the norm.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gem I thought this was a debate forum and not court of law, Bacon - I think you have got the two badly mixed up. I am not on trial here, please remember that.

So because we're not in a court of law, we assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent? We assume that every act is harmful and every person is mentally ill unless they can prove to us otherwise? Say it back to yourself a few times and consider whether that's really the position you want to take in this debate.

[tinybear]

I said "So, apparently, God didn't think of gays as a means of population control, as otherwise gays would have been spared." That was my message. I thought I made it crystal clear.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: tinybear I said "So, apparently, God didn't think of gays as a means of population control, as otherwise gays would have been spared." That was my message. I thought I made it crystal clear.

But I thought you didn't believe in god, tiny? The message would have been clear coming from a Christian, I daresay - it was your motive in dragging a non-existent god into the equation that I found puzzling.

[tinybear]

Yeah, but I thought the princess believes in God and I was merely pointing out to her that her theory about homosexuality being nature's way of population control is flawed.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy So because we're not in a court of law, we assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent? We assume that every act is harmful and every person is mentally ill unless they can prove to us otherwise? Say it back to yourself a few times and consider whether that's really the position you want to take in this debate.

Though the following (bolded) phrases are relatively common in people's posts, Bacon, you lard your posts with so much court-room jargon that it is difficult to avoid feeling one is on trial here, and not in a friendly debate forum. And this is just the last paragraph in your latest outburst:

=The Bacon Guy;627958},You.. have formed and made very clear your views on bestiality. You have claimed that it causes suffering to the animal in all cases and that it is harmful to the human. That’s a serious allegation to make about an entire group of people, so I suggest you start looking for some proof... And only one of us needs to prove anything. In the absence of any evidence, people are assumed to be sane, harmless and innocent by default. If you want to claim otherwise, you need evidence.

Give me a break, Bacon - I don't know about you, but since I don't have a legal background (which you will say is rather obvious) - this sort of thing can be somewhat intimidating and hostile-sounding when carried to excess. It also rules out looking at the issue from other, non-legalistic angles, which is a pity, because that would be interesting to explore in some depth.

Now we have got stuck on this argy-bargy about proof and counter-proof, all of which is depressingly repetitive because I've lost count of the number of times I have tried to explain to you why basing the argument on proof (which is, by its nature, simply not documented - in the case of how animals feel, in particular) - yet you are relentless.

It's also very easy to fall back on your cut-and-dried methodology, to assume that in the absence of proof you are, by default, in an unassailable position... The fact is, in both of our recent debates (the other being blood sports) - you have assumed this simplistic stance, without even considering that my sort of ethical objections can possibly be taken seriously.

Let me underline it for you, then - from where I'm coming, a debate needs to be multi-faceted - and that means taking into account the sort of considerations that you find irrelevant - and which I think are.

For example, where you say there is no 'proof' that animals co-opted into a sex act with a human feel anything at all - I would say that because there is no such proof, there may be as the result of future research... In the meantime, is it ethical to continue with a practice such as bestiality, which at the very least has no benefit for the beast (or - arguably - for the human), but is still widely regarded as abuse? Why should this be such a universal attitude? - that sort of thing.

My personal view is quite clear - bestiality is not a morally-negative practice, and if you disagree, it's reasonable to ask you to spell out exactly why you think it is morally neutral - as you keep insisting.

I shall await your usual disparaging reply with the usual mixed feelings I have about being ridiculed, cross-examined and mocked at every opportunity.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: tinybear Yeah, but I thought the princess believes in God and I was merely pointing out to her that her theory about homosexuality being nature's way of population control is flawed.

First you have to establish whether the myth of Sodom and Gomorra was really about homosexual behaviour, and not, (as most thoughtful theologians always insist), about debauchery in general, and a lack of respect for strangers in particular.

You happen to have chosen a particularly bad example from scripture to make a dubious point, that's all.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gem Though the following (bolded) phrases are relatively common in people's posts, Bacon, you lard your posts with so much court-room jargon that it is difficult to avoid feeling one is on trial here, and not in a friendly debate forum. And this is just the last paragraph in your latest outburst:

Whether you feel like you're on trial is no concern of mine. You made a claim that someone is harmful and you need to prove it. That applies in and out of courts, as I'm sure you would want somoene who claimed that you are harmful to offer up some kind of reasoning.

Quote by: Gem Give me a break, Bacon - I don't know about you, but since I don't have a legal background (which you will say is rather obvious) - this sort of thing can be somewhat intimidating and hostile-sounding when carried to excess. It also rules out looking at the issue from other, non-legalistic angles, which is a pity, because that would be interesting to explore in some depth.

No one asked you to make a legal argument; I asked you to prove your claim. That's standard practice in a debate; not just in a court.

Quote by: Gem Now we have got stuck on this argy-bargy about proof and counter-proof, all of which is depressingly repetitive because I've lost count of the number of times I have tried to explain to you why basing the argument on proof (which is, by its nature, simply not documented - in the case of how animals feel, in particular) - yet you are relentless.

Because I've already told you that it doesn't matter whether proof is available. If no proof is available, you make no claims, or at the very least you give people the benefit of the doubt.

Quote by: Gem It's also very easy to fall back on your cut-and-dried methodology, to assume that in the absence of proof you are, by default, in an unassailable position... The fact is, in both of our recent debates (the other being blood sports) - you have assumed this simplistic stance, without even considering that my sort of ethical objections can possibly be taken seriously.

What ethical objections? All you've given me is this ambiguous phrase. If you think you have another way of supporting your argument, post it.

Quote by: Gem Let me underline it for you, then - from where I'm coming, a debate needs to be multi-faceted - and that means taking into account the sort of considerations that you find irrelevant - and which I think are. For example, where you say there is no 'proof' that animals co-opted into a sex act with a human feel anything at all - I would say that because there is no such proof, there may be as the result of future research... In the meantime, is it ethical to continue with a practice such as bestiality, which at the very least has no benefit for the beast (or - arguably - for the human), but is still widely regarded as abuse?

We don't know with a hunderd percent certainty if horseriding causes the horse suffering, we don't know if keeping pets causes them suffering, we don't know if online debate alters our mind and makes us more likely to become criminals. Should these be considered unethical because we don't know whether they're harmful? Should all practices and people be considered unethical by default?

Quote by: Gem Why should this be such a universal attitude?

Hundreds of reasons; none of them valid. Religion, belief that it will result in animal-human hybrids, intolerance of the unusual.

Quote by: Gem My personal view is quite clear - bestiality is not a morally-negative practice

I thought you said it was morally-negative.

Quote by: Gem , and if you disagree, it's reasonable to ask you to spell out exactly why you think it is morally neutral - as you keep insisting.

Because there is no evidence, reasoning or 'ethical argument' to suggest that it is morally negative. I presume people to be harmless until proven otherwise. You can call that legal-speak if you want, but I don't think you can argue that it's not a sound principle to apply to everyday life.

I notice you didn't actually answer my question. Should all practices be assumed to be harmful and all people assumed to be mentally ill by default? Or just the ones you have an emotional dislike for?

[Stevejavson]

Quote by: GeminiBrian First you have to establish whether the myth of Sodom and Gomorra was really about homosexual behaviour, and not, (as most thoughtful theologians always insist), about debauchery in general, and a lack of respect for strangers in particular. You happen to have chosen a particularly bad example from scripture to make a dubious point, that's all.

They tried to rape angels. Pretty sure God wold have been pissed about that even if they were female angels.

[tinybear]

Sodom and Gomorrah have been used as metaphors for vice and sexual deviation. The story has therefore given rise to words in several languages, including the English word "sodomy", a term used today predominantly in law (derived from traditional Christian usage) to describe non-vaginal intercourse, as well as bestiality.

Sodom and Gomorrah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: tinybear Sodom and Gomorrah have been used as metaphors for vice and sexual deviation. The story has therefore given rise to words in several languages, including the English word "sodomy", a term used today predominantly in law (derived from traditional Christian usage) to describe non-vaginal intercourse, as well as bestiality. Sodom and Gomorrah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Funny how selective people can be. If you read the story of Lot in the OT you will find that, in addition to offering his own daughters to the lust-crazed mob at his door as substitutes for his two angel guests (the fact that the poor girls were virgins is besides the point) - Lot later danced naked in front of his daughters in a drunken stupor, and when he passed out, the daughters decided to have forced sex with him anyway - leading to "fine sons" 9 months later.

Now, since Lot and his family were considered by Jehovah to be the only righteous people in the whole of Sodom, and the only people worth saving from the subsequent destruction of that city - mightn't we conclude that the odd act of buggery wasn't so terrible after all?

Like I said, tinybear - you seem to have chosen a stunningly bad example in this case.

[tinybear]

Well, if you ask me Lot should have been burnt as well. And the poor wife should have been spared. I mean, after all, what heinous crime was she guilty of? Since when is curiosity a crime punishable by death?

But, be that as it may, this does not detract from the point I was making: Homosexuality is not nature's (God's) means of population control.

[princessme23]

But, be that as it may, this does not detract from the point I was making: Homosexuality is not nature's (God's) means of population control.

lucky he doesnt exsist then!

And I dont really see what part in the bible it refers to homosexuals and population control?

[tinybear]

Princess, please read my post #139.

[princessme23]

I did it was proven quite irrelevant.

Also, if you dont really abide by the bible in the 1st place its pretty unsubstantial to bring it up to try and win over an arguement.

[tinybear]

What do you mean abide by the Bible? The Bible is not law you know.