I'M TIRED OF GAY MARRIAGE OPPOSERS

[entwinedwithsickness]

Originally Posted by Tomes of Deceit

I always scoffed at the argument by conservatives/christians that tolerating homosexuality is part of a slippery slope to bestiality. But come to think of it, they're probably right. I never gave it much thought before now but there isn't any good (general) argument against "zoophilia" which doesn't rest on taboo, social norms, or squeamishness.

I am not saying this to imply that homosexuality is anything close to bestiality, as that would obviously be highly demeaning.

I think comparing an animal being fucked by a person and 2 consenting adults having a piece of paper that says they are married and gives them legal rights in the event of one's death is pretty messed up. Not accusing you of this, but it is the general right wing thought process based on reactions to gay marriage.

Besides, in many states (I believe 19..not sure) its perfectly acceptable (and legal) to marry your first cousin so incest is already legal in those states . Is it worse to marry someone of the same sex?

Is it better to let religious dogma rule the country than social norms?

[disGUSt(tx)]

I don't fuck animals. I don't get it, at all. Please elaborate Tomes.

[Vril]

Originally Posted by Tomes of Deceit

I always scoffed at the argument by conservatives/christians that tolerating homosexuality is part of a slippery slope to bestiality. But come to think of it, they're probably right. I never gave it much thought before now but there isn't any good (general) argument against "zoophilia" which doesn't rest on taboo, social norms, or squeamishness.

I am not saying this to imply that homosexuality is anything close to bestiality, as that would obviously be highly demeaning.

Consent is a pretty big issue maing.

An animal cannot comprehend, understand, or consent to having a dick shoved up it's asshole.

Two human adults, in full awareness, can choose to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. It's not even remotely similar.

[brett]

Bestiality where the dog jumps on a static woman and thrusts away has pretty much given consent.

[Tomes of Deceit]

Consent is the main argument people use but (and I'm just paraphrasing what I read on wikipedia), the notion of consent is irrelevant for animals because they are equally unable to give consent to being a pet in the first place. For example, people are allowed to keep their pets confined to their home all the time, even though this would be considered kidnapping or torture in the case of a person, etc.

If the pet seems reasonably happy and healthy we don't have a problem with the fact that they are a pet, and apparently the people who are serious "zoophiles" feel that the same rules apply.

Cruelty to animals is a separate thing from having sex with them. For example in the Mr Hands case, bestiality wasn't illegal in Washington state, and the investigators found no evidence of cruelty or harm to the horses. So they had to make bestiality illegal as a reaction.

People would claim that it's unnatural, but if you think about it, I'm sure humans have been screwing animals since the dawn of time. The other interesting thing is, apparently breeding between different animal species is much more common in nature than previously thought.

Anyway, don't get me wrong, I don't support legalization of bestiality. But only because there's really nothing to be gained by it. It's mainly a symbolic law anyway, since anyone who wants to mess around with their dog is free to do so and there's basically no way they could ever get caught or charged.

There is one negative that I was neglecting during my previous post though. Of course it opens people up to diseases they wouldn't otherwise get.

[brett]

On the gay marriage topic, I don't care whether two people that have nothing to do with me get married. But because of the lack of value I personally place on marriage, I wonder why they care so much; why not just invent your own version of marriage and call it something else, no one can stop you?

It's also got that political correctness element I really hate, the issue being similar to the 'women being outraged at men only clubs' bullshit that was in the news a while back.

[disGUSt(tx)]

I am not a fucking paraphiliac. You're only talking about bestiality in a thread about gay marraige, where you previously lumped homosexuality in with zoophilia, a comparison which makes absolutely zero sense. The only thing I believe I have in common with a pedophile and zoophile is that I do not have sex with a consenting adult of the opposite sex (although the first part remains true) and that I have absolutely no control over such and it feels as natural and instinctual of an urge as heterosexuality. The only thing I think they have in common is that they are NOT heterosexuality.

If you wish to have a discussion on sexuality and the science of it, fine. But don't use outdated Sigmund Freud psychology from ages ago and give me this shit about how I am a paraphile, because I am not. Homosexuality has not been classified as such for almost 40 years, and it's because Freud was wrong (as he was with a lot of things) that homosexuality can always be traced to infantile roots and is therefore entirely environment influenced (IE "absent father" theory). It's not true, it only sometimes is. Some people are just born homosexual (seems obvious but read on), I am of the belief that some are actually not, but that those who are not were likely bisexual at a young age, and somehow gained a preference for men before puberty began. As much as I hate to touch on child sexuality, it exists and often that's where homosexuality has it's roots, and no I am not talking about abuse influencing sexuality either, I am talking about basic psychology and sexuality that children develop, independently of abuse. Other people don't have environmental roots to their homosexuality, they were simply born attracted to the same sex and absolutely nothing can change that. So my answer to the age-old question of "genetics vs. psychology" in the case of homosexuality, is both are true and often simply a case-by-case basis. If you ask me further (even though you didn't), I believe more effeminate homosexuals are more likely to fall into the genetic category, whereas men who appear very masculine fall into the environmental category, but I am simply theorizing at this stage I guess that's a more controversial statement and frankly is just my personal theory.

Pedophiles (and probably most paraphiliacs like zoophiles) are not inclined to change, which I why I believe in killing them or castrating them, instead of trying to treat them clinically or monitor them, (sounds cruel, especially somebody normally strongly opposed to capital punishment as myself, I would be the first to do such to a proven pedophile to protect children) because that wouldn't keep me away from men, you would have to kill me or castrate me. That is where the similarities began and end. The difference is, what I do is completely consentual, and if someone wants to be fucked by their consenting dog, then so be it, I don't really care.

I don't get your consent counter-argument as well, as an animal doesn't have to be your pet in the first place, and anyone who's ever found a helpless puppy and kept it knows a pet can TOTALLY consent to being a pet, some damn near beg for human companionship.

Basically, although you are brave for trying to lump homosexuality in with other sexual "perversions", you are not the first and it was once considered textbook fact, until the 70's when it was declassified as a disorder. How can I have the same disorder as a woman who has sex with women? We are attracted and driven to completely different things. Do women have the same disorder? After all, we are both equally attracted to men (usually). Psychology between men and women obviously differ, but psychology also differs between people individually beyond that. As long as it's normal for women to be with men, than it should be within normal sexuality for anyone to be with men. The same is not true of paraphiliacs, what they do is outside norms for anyone. What I do is only outside the norm for most men, although women love the cock to no consequence (usually). At the same time, it is also NOT a gender issue, because then you wouldn't have very masculine gay men, or very effeminate lesbians, sometimes even more stereotypical than their heterosexual counterparts. If I am more masculine than some straight men and such feels very natural for me, then it cannot be an issue of gender. Sexuality is independent of gender, therefore homosexuality should be viewed as equal in normality to heterosexuality, despite homosexuality being less widespread. Beyond being men and women, we need to identify as gay and straight off the bat, rather than assuming heterosexuality, even if it is more likely. When we do such, it is almost impossible to categorize homosexuality as paraphilia. If we can legitimize homosexuality to the same degree as heterosexuality, then it is not a disorder.

[disGUSt(tx)]

Originally Posted by brett

On the gay marriage topic, I don't care whether two people that have nothing to do with me get married. But because of the lack of value I personally place on marriage, I wonder why they care so much; why not just invent your own version of marriage and call it something else, no one can stop you?

I actually don't care, marriage is the traditional and ceremonial process of a father selling his daughter away to another family, essentially for political motivations. If marriage doesn't have roots in love, and it's not necessary for love, I don't see why homosexuals are that into the idea of "gay marriage" either. And what you are describing in the last section already exists and is called a "civil union", in which a politically correct gay wedding is often referred to as a "commitment ceremony". Frankly, it's just the same kind of politically correct faggotry (for lack of a better word) and gay people who really want to marry in the very tradition sense SHOULD call it marriage, because they shouldn't be submissive to heterosexual Christians and appease their political ideology if they really are seeking equality, I sure as hell wouldn't. But I also wouldn't marry at all, because I don't dig churches, or the ceremony, or anything else that goes along with it (like vows and rings). We should open up the same loophole for common law marriage and civil unions to homosexuals, which already exists for some straight people (in some states, isn't civil partnership automatic for straight couples after living together for a given amount of time?), and let the people who want to call it marriage do so and let people debate the word marriage where it should be debated, in churches I don't have to go into. So basically we open up civil unions to everyone, which is already equal to marriage, thus some churches will allow gay marriage ceremonies even if some prohibit it. Thus, we should simply strive for the legitimization and legalization of same-sex civil unions to win it "all". After all, marriage is just a religious term, and religion is free here, there's already GLBT churches in every gay village, people can get married there. Civil union is a legal term, so we need to change THAT law and not worry about the other one regarding marriage.

[Tomes of Deceit]

I think you misinterpreted what I said. I'm not lumping homosexuality in with bestiality at all, I tried to make that clear at the end of my original post. I am a total supporter of all gay rights, etc.

Ultimately I think any kind of (victimless) sex whatsoever should have nothing to do with the government, and the fact that the state concerns itself with marriage (heterosexual or homosexual) is because these things are related to family life and child raising. As it happens, sex is a precursor to child-raising in many heterosexual couples, but nevertheless the sex itself is irrelevant to any of the policies or laws relating to marriage and procreation.

My comment about the "slippery slope" was probably not well phrased. It's just that, I had always looked at bestiality as fucked up and not given it any further thought. But then I realized that yeah actually, the most sexually liberal people would not have a categorical objection to sex with animals.

I guess I see it kind of like BDSM...it's pretty gross to most people and if you do it you probably don't want your family, coworkers, or casual friends to know about it. But if you take the necessary precautions you can remain healthy and at that point it should be of no concern to the state.

[De Profoundis]

Thread became tl;dr...so I clicked on the dog fucking vid again.

[Tomes of Deceit]

Who would you choose?

[Antæos]

Originally Posted by brett

On the gay marriage topic, I don't care whether two people that have nothing to do with me get married. But because of the lack of value I personally place on marriage, I wonder why they care so much; why not just invent your own version of marriage and call it something else, no one can stop you?

It's also got that political correctness element I really hate, the issue being similar to the 'women being outraged at men only clubs' bullshit that was in the news a while back.

Because marriage is a legal union in the US, which confers a bunch of rights and entitlements. Rights such as next-of-kin recognition, etc., so you can visit your loved one in the hospital. The Republican party, comprised of the brightest minds of the 14th century, recognize how terrible it would be if godless sodomites were allowed to grieve their dying lovers in the proper manner, and consequently there's a great deal of legislation in action to prevent exactly that (e.g. DOMA).

It causes me tremendous grief to know that, in the year 2012 where the rest of us hunt for Higgs bosons and epigenetic inheritance through 1000$ next-generation genome sequencing, people still have time for idle cruelty like this shit. Not being shit on at every turn is a basic human right, and there is no morally or ethically tractable way of defending "the institution of marriage" (whatever that is) in the way it is done in the US.

[Lichtbringer]

Jesus, Gus. Learn to fucking read.

[disGUSt(tx)]

Originally Posted by Tomes of Deceit

I think you misinterpreted what I said. I'm not lumping homosexuality in with bestiality at all, I tried to make that clear at the end of my original post. I am a total supporter of all gay rights, etc.

I didn't think otherwise. However when you said "it's kinda like bestiality", it's very different, and in more ways than it is similar. It used to be lumped together, but now it is not, and that was the point I was trying to make, that homosexuality is not paraphilia and is thus free from all perversion.

Ultimately I think any kind of (victimless) sex whatsoever should have nothing to do with the government, and the fact that the state concerns itself with marriage (heterosexual or homosexual) is because these things are related to family life and child raising. As it happens, sex is a precursor to child-raising in many heterosexual couples, but nevertheless the sex itself is irrelevant to any of the policies or laws relating to marriage and procreation.

I don't know why people are so hung up on gay parents either. Frankly, most cases they are taking care of someone else's bastard/neglected child anyways.

My comment about the "slippery slope" was probably not well phrased. It's just that, I had always looked at bestiality as fucked up and not given it any further thought. But then I realized that yeah actually, the most sexually liberal people would not have a categorical objection to sex with animals.

Consenting animals, that is. A male dog will mount a chick under the right circumstances, I don't care at that point. People raping their dogs, I must disapprove. I guess that means men cannot have insertive sex with a dog, it's probably not gonna consent, at least not the first time (i dunno, never tried, lol).

Like I said before, the main difference (besides consent which we've already discussed is still circumstantial) is that, while bestiality is also a social taboo, half the population is not allowed that which you are denied. Everyone is expected to not fuck animals, while only men are expected to not fuck men. Women can enjoy men to no consequence (somewhat, not in Afghanistan), yet I cannot, because I am also a man. it's outside the norm only because of my gender, not because I am human (while the latter is true for bestiality and pedophilia, it's wrong equally for all humans, male or female.)

I have never really done PDA with men because of the shame, most of my friends actually have never seen me with as much as my arm around a dude, even that is rare for me. However, no one would question a women publicly kissing the same dude. It's "weird" because I am male, not because I am human, while bestiality and pedophilia are fucked up simply on the basis that you are a living human being.

I guess I see it kind of like BDSM...it's pretty gross to most people and if you do it you probably don't want your family, coworkers, or casual friends to know about it. But if you take the necessary precautions you can remain healthy and at that point it should be of no concern to the state.

Bestiality or homosexuality? Sure, if you like to get fucked by a consentual dog (I am of the opinion the dog has to be male and you've gotta either be a women or a dude into cock, or else it won't be consensual most likely) then that's fine if it's private, just keep it ethical and to yourself. But if you're talking about homosexuality, it shouldn't be the same as BDSM, discretion shouldn't be expected of you unless you or your partner demands that (and I am a pretty discreet gay guy.)

[disGUSt(tx)]

Originally Posted by Lichtbringer

Jesus, Gus. Learn to fucking read.

What're you talking about? Iaintevenmad.jpg, we're just discussing. The only thing that led us (and I say us because I wasn't the only one) to respond to him, was him saying that the Christians were technically right, which I guess I understand now, but only if you add consent to the mix, which changes EVERYTHING. He never mentioned consensual bestiality, only in general. There are more similarities between consensual bestiality and homosexuality, than that of homosexuality and straight up dog rape. Also wanted to be sure he understood that homosexuality is not paraphilia but zoophilia is, and why they are classified that way. I never thought for a second that he thought I was perverse like dog-fuckers are. I was never offended, just wanted to get my point across that I am not a god damn paraphiliac by modern psychological standards, but that dog fuckers are.

[brett]

Gus: so you are saying it is true that a person's attraction to young children or animals is not something they are born with, but an attraction to other humans is? Why?

Also I was aware of those unions, however I was under the impression that gay people aren't satisfied with it being technically different. I agree, they should just call it marriage.

Antæos: you're right, rights like that should be available to homosex couples. In Australia, where I'm from and maybe why my posts you objected to, 'same sex unions' have recently been given precisely the same rights as married couples. Which is right, in my opinion.

[entwinedwithsickness]

Originally Posted by brett

On the gay marriage topic, I don't care whether two people that have nothing to do with me get married. But because of the lack of value I personally place on marriage, I wonder why they care so much; why not just invent your own version of marriage and call it something else, no one can stop you?

It's also got that political correctness element I really hate, the issue being similar to the 'women being outraged at men only clubs' bullshit that was in the news a while back.

The law that just passed in North Carolina has endangered civil unions AND domestic partnerships in addition to banning gay marriage. The wording used is vague enough that this could harm all gay couples and unmarried straight couples. That's the major issue.

[Tomes of Deceit]

Originally Posted by disGUSt(tx)

I don't know why people are so hung up on gay parents either. Frankly, most cases they are taking care of someone else's bastard/neglected child anyways.

Any argument against gay parenting is completely invalid unless we outlaw single parents...

I have never really done PDA with men because of the shame, most of my friends actually have never seen me with as much as my arm around a dude, even that is rare for me. However, no one would question a women publicly kissing the same dude. It's "weird" because I am male, not because I am human, while bestiality and pedophilia are fucked up simply on the basis that you are a living human being.

Well, a simple hug or kiss between a gay couple in public should not bother anyone. If a straight couple is eating eachothers face or groping in public, most people don't really want to see that either.

Bestiality or homosexuality? Sure, if you like to get fucked by a consentual dog (I am of the opinion the dog has to be male and you've gotta either be a women or a dude into cock, or else it won't be consensual most likely) then that's fine if it's private, just keep it ethical and to yourself. But if you're talking about homosexuality, it shouldn't be the same as BDSM, discretion shouldn't be expected of you unless you or your partner demands that (and I am a pretty discreet gay guy.)

Yeah I was talking about bestiality.

[cry0fth3carr0ts]

Originally Posted by Tomes of Deceit

Yeah I was talking about bestiality.

Originally Posted by Tomes of Deceit

Yeah I was talking about bestiality.

Originally Posted by Tomes of Deceit

Yeah I was talking about bestiality.

Originally Posted by Tomes of Deceit

Yeah I was talking about bestiality.

Originally Posted by Tomes of Deceit

Yeah I was talking about bestiality.

[SLIT YOUR GUTZ]

[Spew]

Originally Posted by Schwenger

Everyone has the right to ruin their own lives.

[De Profoundis]