Bestiality and Homosexuality go hand in hand

[princessme23]

If your a christian you generally abide by the ten commandments and the rules of god.
Obiously not implicitly,
Nobody said it was law, nobody mentioned law!

Im saying, the bible quotes arent relevant if you dont believe in God regarding poulation control

Anyway, we have gone wildly off topic!
Maybe we should start a new thread.....lol

[GeminiBrian]

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

I think that was Princess's point, tiny.

[GeminiBrian]

http://www.vactf.org/pdfs/bestiality-factsheet.pdf

Bestiality, according to several sources, is connected with violent tendencies towards other people, and other forms of anti-social behaviour.

Some interesting facts on the above link... not quite the harmless pastime Bacon would have us believe, maybe?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gem I think that was Princess's point, tiny.

Not condescending when you do it?

Quote by: Gem http://www.vactf.org/pdfs/bestiality-factsheet.pdf

Laughably biased source. I'm sure I could find you a similar one on homosexuality if I looked. Next.

Quote by: Gem Bestiality, according to several sources, is connected with violent tendencies towards other people, and other forms of anti-social behaviour.

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are also higher crime rates amongst blacks. Does that mean being black causes crime?

Quote by: Gem Some interesting facts on the above link..

I see very little in the way of facts in that link. Clue: most facts don't start with the words 'may' or 'many'. All I see is the same baseless assertions you have made.

The claim that 'some' people 'may' physically harm the animal during sex, while providing no stats, totally ignoring the fact that this is not exclusive to or a requirement of bestiality and ignoring the fact that such practices would already be prohobited by other animal cruelty laws.

The claim that it is non-consensual, while totally ignoring that animal consent is not a requirement for any other practices.

The absurd claim that men are the only ones who engage in bestiality, while all the women involved have been coerced into it (no stats or studies of course).

The false links to paedophilia (paedophilic acts are proven to be harmful; bestiality is not) and sadiam (a small and unrepresentative percentage of bestiality is carried out by sadists).

Again, next.

Quote by: Gem not quite the harmless pastime Bacon would have us believe, maybe?

Still waiting for a response to my last post by the way.

[Jack]

Bestiality and Homosexuality go hand in hand

Shouldn't that be "hand in paw" or hoof or something? I'm just saying.

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Not condescending when you do it? Laughably biased source. I'm sure I could find you a similar one on homosexuality if I looked. Next.

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know that your opponent is clutching at straws when they gleefully provide quotes after they have been suitably edited so as not to tell the full story... In the case of the above link, the FULL sentence reads as follows: (underlining mine).

"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though it doesn't remove the fact that correlation can still be a hint, whether powerful or otherwise).

That's my whole point about the sort of tunnel-vision you, Bacon, are attempting to make me adopt in order to match yours on this thread (as in others).

Even a Wiki definition, supposedly impartial, is obliged to qualify itself by adding that highly significant bit in parentheses, to give a more founded picture, just as we see.

Now, on the basis of that alone, I would say you are being hasty in dismissing the plethora of anecdotal evidence (and sometimes direct evidence) which various studies (and informed clinical comment) regularly throw up - that there 'probably' is a direct link between the sort of mentality that causes some individuals to exercise negative sexual power over other humans, and their propensity to extend such behaviour towards abusing animals.

This 'probability' seems to be re-enforced by much of material on the link I provided, call it 'biased' (predictably) in the absence of a more reasoned critique on your part.

There are also higher crime rates amongst blacks. Does that mean being black causes crime?

We aren't talking about the "causes" of bestiality, Bacon - we are debating whether bestiality is a harmful practice or not, (as a spin-off from the ridiculous assertion that it is connected with homosexuality, which isn't worthy of discussion, IMO) - and I can't see why your analogy with black crime has any significance...

I mean, regardless of the societal or other influences that lead to a demographically disproportionate number of black people being involved in crime, the crime figures are reliable (one hopes), so the fact remains that these crimes are being committed, and cause a lot of grief to the victims... And although that grief has nothing to do with the colour of the offender's skin, it is very real. Nonetheless, you might reasonably argue that citizens in some mixed-race areas have some justification for being more wary of one ethnic group than the other, taking statistical probability into account, regardless of the underlying causes of such crime. So the offense is indeed harmful.

So what's my point? - I am not arguing that "correlation implies causation" as you imply: I am not saying that beating one's partner automatically leads to assaulting animals - only that there appears to be a well-observed correlation between the two that can't be ignored in this debate.

Unless you can prove that these kinks don't exist (which would be flying in the face of the conclusion of several experts in the field) - I think you would be foolish to go on saying that bestiality is harmless. You should at least qualify that by saying that there is a body of evidence which suggests otherwise, much of it the view of experienced academics.

I see very little in the way of facts in that link. Clue: most facts don't start with the words 'may' or 'many'. All I see is the same baseless assertions you have made.

Black and white conclusions of the sort that you demand in all cases are rarely available in such emotive issues as these, which must be very frustrating for you Bacon, as I understand you. Let's keep an eye on the ongoing research before you draw such firm conclusions as you already hold - I think it is socially irresponsible to disregard the danger implicit in bestiality, if not to the perpetrator (although some have been killed by the animal) - then at least to the potential human sexual partners of these people - given the elements of sadism and control-mentality that has been shown to be present, as the link suggests.

The claim that 'some' people 'may' physically harm the animal during sex, while providing no stats, totally ignoring the fact that this is not exclusive to or a requirement of bestiality and ignoring the fact that such practices would already be prohobited by other animal cruelty laws.

Indeed - the animal cruelty laws may well be invoked, especially in the case of animals that are smaller than their assailant. I don't see your point - unless you are admitting that forcing penetration on an animal, causing it severe physical trauma, and sometimes death, is an abominable way to behave. I'm far from ignoring the facts - I am realistic enough to realise that if you take an unsuitably small orifice and force your erection into it - it is not going to do the victim any good. And there's the link to paedophilia as well - an equally abhorrent practice.

So far, I have allowed you to get away with a lot because the argument has been confined to horses - where the said orifice may, or may not be harmed - but now I am asking you to address directly the sadism of inflicting copulation on far smaller creatures. You can't pretend that a cat, for instance, is going to enjoy sexual relations with a human male?

The claim that it is non-consensual, while totally ignoring that animal consent is not a requirement for any other practices.

Irrelevant objection, given that animals giving consent to their own deaths in the food industry is arguably a separate issue.

The absurd claim that men are the only ones who engage in bestiality, while all the women involved have been coerced into it (no stats or studies of course).

Who made such a claim? - Certainly not me - it's been overlooked, presumably, because it is more difficult for a woman to force herself on an unwilling animal - or am I being naive?

The false links to paedophilia (paedophilic acts are proven to be harmful; bestiality is not) and sadism (a small and unrepresentative percentage of bestiality is carried out by sadists).

Your argument depends entirely on these links being false - beware, though, Bacon - you are on shaky ground.

Again, next.

Deal with the above first, please.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gem Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You know that your opponent is clutching at straws when they gleefully provide quotes after they have been suitably edited so as not to tell the full story... In the case of the above link, the FULL sentence reads as follows: (underlining mine).

I didn't quote anything from the link.

Quote by: Gem "Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though it doesn't remove the fact that correlation can still be a hint, whether powerful or otherwise). That's my whole point about the sort of tunnel-vision you, Bacon, are attempting to make me adopt in order to match yours on this thread (as in others). Even a Wiki definition, supposedly impartial, is obliged to qualify itself by adding that highly significant bit in parentheses, to give a more founded picture, just as we see.

Again, 'can' and 'hint' are not evidence of anything unless you have something to follow it up with. It could be a clue. You don't draw conclusions based solely on something which might be a clue.

Quote by: Gem Now, on the basis of that alone, I would say you are being hasty in dismissing the plethora of anecdotal evidence (and sometimes direct evidence)

Provide it please.

Quote by: Gem which various studies (and informed clinical comment) regularly throw up - that there 'probably' is a direct link between the sort of mentality that causes some individuals to exercise negative sexual power over other humans, and their propensity to extend such behaviour towards abusing animals.

First of all, that applies only to some of the people who indulge in bestiality. I see no evidence that these people are representative of all who engage in bestiality.

More importantly, how does that prove that bestiality is harmful?

Quote by: Gem This 'probability' seems to be re-enforced by much of material on the link I provided, call it 'biased' (predictably) in the absence of a more reasoned critique on your part.

Are you saying it was fair and balanced? If so, how about you address directly some of the specific objections I had to it?

Quote by: Gem We aren't talking about the "causes" of bestiality

No, and you have misinterpreted the analogy. We're talking about the cause of the violent behaviour that you claim is correlated to bestiality. You are using this supposed link to prove that bestiality is harmful. Unless it is the bestiality which directly causes the violent behaviour, I don't see how the correlation with violent behaviour relates to the question of whether bestiality is harmful.

Quote by: Gem I mean, regardless of the societal or other influences that lead to a demographically disproportionate number of black people being involved in crime, the crime figures are reliable (one hopes), so the fact remains that these crimes are being committed, and cause a lot of grief to the victims... And although that grief has nothing to do with the colour of the offender's skin, it is very real. Nonetheless, you might reasonably argue that citizens in some mixed-race areas have some justification for being more wary of one ethnic group than the other, taking statistical probability into account, regardless of the underlying causes of such crime. So the offense is indeed harmful. So what's my point? - I am not arguing that "correlation implies causation" as you imply: I am not saying that beating one's partner automatically leads to assaulting animals - only that there appears to be a well-observed correlation between the two that can't be ignored in this debate.

Unless you can explain how it relates to whether bestiality is harmful, there is no reason not to ignore it.

Quote by: Gem Black and white conclusions of the sort that you demand in all cases are rarely available in such emotive issues as these, which must be very frustrating for you Bacon, as I understand you. Let's keep an eye on the ongoing research before you draw such firm conclusions as you already hold -

I never mentioned a definite conclusion. But in the absence of any evidence, people are assumed to be harmless.

Quote by: Gem I think it is socially irresponsible to disregard the danger implicit in bestiality, if not to the perpetrator (although some have been killed by the animal) - then at least to the potential human sexual partners of these people - given the elements of sadism and control-mentality that has been shown to be present, as the link suggests.

Unless you can prove that these sadistic tendencies are caused by the act of bestiality, the act has no influence on how dangerous the person is. It's may be an expression of sadism, but it is not a cause of it.

Quote by: Gem Indeed - the animal cruelty laws may well be invoked, especially in the case of animals that are smaller than their assailant. I don't see your point - unless you are admitting that forcing penetration on an animal, causing it severe physical trauma, and sometimes death, is an abominable way to behave.

Of course I am; I've never denied this. The point is that it's got nothing to do with bestiality in general. The harmful actions of a small minority of zoophiles is hardly grounds to judge all of them. It's like judging all homosexuals by the actions of homosexual rapists.

Quote by: Gem So far, I have allowed you to get away with a lot because the argument has been confined to horses - where the said orifice may, or may not be harmed - but now I am asking you to address directly the sadism of inflicting copulation on far smaller creatures. You can't pretend that a cat, for instance, is going to enjoy sexual relations with a human male?

Never said it would. Again, how is that anything to do with bestiality in general? And I think we're better off sticking with horses and dogs, given that your own 'fact'sheet said that these are by far the most common 'victims'.

Quote by: Gem Irrelevant objection, given that animals giving consent to their own deaths in the food industry is arguably a separate issue.

No it isn't. If you argue that consent is important in human-animal interactions, you are arguing that humans should have no interactions with animals whatsoever. No horseriding, pets, meat etc.

Quote by: Gem Who made such a claim? - Certainly not me - it's been overlooked, presumably, because it is more difficult for a woman to force herself on an unwilling animal - or am I being naive?

Your link did, and do an image search for bestiallity. Either it's very easy for a woman to 'force' herself on an animal, or animals really can consent to and enjoy sex with humans. Either way, you're wrong.

Quote by: Gem Your argument depends entirely on these links being false - beware, though, Bacon - you are on shaky ground.

Prove it.

[Cruella]

So, if you can't provide an unbiased source, and you have no belief in the bible, what are you going to use to support your allegations next, Tiny?

[The Bacon Guy]

Same question to Gem.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Cruella So, if you can't provide an unbiased source, and you have no belief in the bible, what are you going to use to support your allegations next, Tiny?

OK, actually I have loads of material on homosexuality, health risks and promiscuity, but thought I'd better not bore you guys with it. But, hey if you insist...

Homosexuality - Conservapedia

Is Homosexuality a Healthy Lifestyle?

Stats on Homosexual Promiscuity Risks

Real Women of Canada - Newsletters - We Are Paying Family Benefits for This?


Happy reading. Let me know if you want more.

[Maryjane]

Heh..conservapedia. I don't know of a site more fixiated on the evils of homosexuality. Gotta love those right wing christians.

- Women who engage in receptive anal sex are at a higher risk for contracting anal cancer. In fact, in the U.S. general population, anal cancer is more prevalent among women than men — between 1.5 and 2 times more common, perhaps because more women than men engage in receptive anal sex.10

Then again...perhaps not....my mother had rectal cancer. No history of anal sex. The type she had was hereditary....all of my sisters and I are at risk as well.

Stastics and studies are funny things.

Generally women are at a greater risk of heterosexual transmission of HIV. Biologically women are twice more likely to become infected with HIV through unprotected heterosexual intercourse than men3.

HIV and AIDS in Africa

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Same question to Gem.

Gem's had too much birthday bubbly to answer anything for the rest of the day - sorry, Bacon...

[Maryjane]

Real Women of Canada - Newsletters - We Are Paying Family Benefits for This?

From your link...Heh...

REAL Women's philosophy is based on Judeo-Christian values

[Cruella]

I asked for UN-biased sources, and ones not using the bible as back-up, tiny. Would you like to try again? Maybe something a little more, shall we say, scientific? Even ones just using statistics rather than opinion and rhetoric would do.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gem Gem's had too much birthday bubbly to answer anything for the rest of the day - sorry, Bacon...

I'll try to contain myself. Have a good one.

[Maryjane]

Please do TBG...there'll be an article about you on some conservative website based on their findings of your non containment if you don't!

[tinybear]

Well, just because statistics come from a conservative or Christian website doesn't mean they are inaccurate and should be ignored. Besides, you know why there is a dearth of similar statistics from gay-friendly websites which show that there is no connection between homosexuality and promiscuity, don't you? Surely, you can figure out why.

Read more: (keep an open mind; just read the statistics provided and ignore the commentary)

The Health Risks of Gay Sex

Statistics On The Homosexual Lifestyle S P E C I A L R E P O R T

Creative Minority Report: Not That There's Anything Wrong With That

[Cruella]

Incidentally, even if your sources were gay pressure groups, I'd consider that data biased too. You do know what unbiased means, don't you, TB? Data needs to come from a neutral source. With the best will in the world, bible groups, anti-gay groups and Conserva-frickin-pedia cannot be considered either neutral, or unbiased.

[princessme23]

Islam Watch - "Anal Sex Approved by Allah and Prophet Muhammad" by Amar Khan

see this is what happens when you get your sources from religious sites!

Nowadays, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah [1] is less often used as a reflection of God's views on homosexuality. A parallel should not be drawn between the attempted homosexual abuse that took place there and pleas for acceptance of loving same sex relationships today. However, the word 'sodomite' is still used in an offensive, unchristlike way to hurt and humiliate people with same sex attractions. In fact, the story of Sodom is mainly about a self-centred and self-pleasing society that was unconcerned about the poor and needy. [2]

cmf.org.uk - Homosexuality: a Christian response (Nucleus, Spring 2008) - information on: Homosexuality, Bisexual, Homosexual, Kinsey Report, Lesbian, Same Sex and True Freedom Trust

unless you use a proven source you come up with all sorts of rubbish!

[SoylentGreen]

Sad that such mindless bigotry as TB is promoting is actually believed.