Do you feel that sexual acts with animals is “unnatural”?
I think you should start a new thread in Great Debates on this topic. Assuming, of course, you can conduct yourself appropriately in that forum (which, admittely, seems rather unlikely).
FTR, I think morality is probably mostly learned behavior, but don’t ask me to provide a justification because I don’t really have one.
Oh no, not the old bestiality argument.
Rook, let me put it to you in terms you will understand. You are stupid. Stupid people do not help the survival of the species. Nature suggests that people should be smart. You are obviously an unnatural screw-up. Please be sure never to breed.
I didn’t just ask that question for the hell of it. I really want to know what the answer would be from a homosexual. Since we have freedom to do whatever we want, why would you feel bestiality is any different? Why the hostility? Am I being too complex? Just answer the question. It’s opinion based so, Lamia, there is no wrong answer.
P.S. I appreciate your definition of my existence but unfortunately, I have the “stupid gene.”
Oops, I wasn’t being snarky. Should have included a smiley. I forget that humor doesn’t translate well on boards.
I see. So only heterosexuals, who apparently do not have any particular sexual orientation, are considered unbiased sources in any discussion of homosexuality.
Ummm…I guess you didn’t read the quote. I’ve been known to do that myself, matt_mcl so I guess we both have the “stupid gene”
And while your at it, look up the definition for “can” – it might help you understand the statement, “I believe that bias CAN (MAY) occur on BOTH sides of the debate”
I’d really like an answer to my question about bestiality being unnatural, or even moral
Well, I’m not a “homosexual” so my answer is probably not very useful to you, but I don’t think that bestiality is inherently immoral or unnatural. Like virtually any act or practice, its morality will depend on the circumstances, in this case whether the act causes unjustified harm to the animal in question and/or whether the human participant is willing. Bestiality where the animal is significantly harmed by the act is, IMO, immoral. Bestiality where an unwilling victim is forced to have sexual contact with an animal is obviously immoral. But I can’t, and won’t, say that “shagging sheep” is immoral.
I think bestiality is a bit weird, but I also think piercing one’s tongue is weird. Weirdness alone is not grounds to form a moral judgment. Nor do I think that interspecies sex is necessarily unnatural; there are lots of examples of this in nature.
The hostilty is because it’s not pertinent to the discussion. You believe homosexuality is a choice, taht we are doing anything that we want, so you are now trying to insert a “slippery slope” argument. We, on the other hand, are arguing that we have a set orientation, and that is towards people of the same gender, not the opposite gender, not animals, not plant-life, not inanimate objects, children or the dead.
You started a thread asking about the gentic basis of hoosexuality. Tring to introduce morality at this late stage of the debate seems like an avoidance tactic, in my opinion. I have asked you direct questions (see below) and now you’re dodging them.
My previous questions:
Do you believe that nature abhors diversity? If so, why? Also, what exactly do you beleive? The opening post asks about genetics, then you mention that you believe it’s a choice and now you seem to lean towards environment. What exactly are you arguing?
Rook, did you even read that article? It totally supported everything I said. It notes that the older psychological research was skewed because it was based on studies of homosexuals who were imprisoned or mentally ill. It states that modern research uniformly shows that homosexuality is not a pathology, and that homosexuals have the same psychological profiles and personal backgrounds as heterosexuals.
It completely contradicts your Vatican citation. Are you aware of that?
Sounds like you’re headed off on a wild tangent to me. Why don’t you start a separate philosophy thread on the subject?
This subject doesn’t even qualify as a tangent. Get your mind out of the gutter.
I’m straight, myself. I educated myself on gay and lesbian issues when I learned that a close family member was gay. But I don’t think my opinions on anything would change if I were suddenly gay. Being gay involves one’s sexual orientation, not one’s way of approaching philosophy or morality.
Have a good night, Rook. :rolleyes:
(I’m referring, of course, to the Atlantic Monthly article that you linked in your own post.)
So us immoral, deviant, godless sodomites would have a different opinion than heterosexuals on beastiality? To suggest that is beyond absurd.
You? Too complex? :rolleyes:
To wit: We have freedom to do whatever we want. Therefore, two people, regardless of gender, can feel free to have a consentual relationship based on whatever they feel to be necessary in a relationship. With an animal, there is no consent, among other things. To suggest that homosexuality and beastiality are analogous is, quite frankly, fuckheaded.
I whole strongly believe nature suggests diversity. The fact that we have different races of human. Also the variety of animals, plant-life, and the ability for us to make diverse decisions. I asked about genetics and was surprised to know how a certain genetic make-up can effect someone’s sexual attraction. But in reality there is no one gene that causes homosexuality and there is no concrete proof that homosexuality is genetic at all. That’s why I brought into the play the possibility of homosexuality being induced by ones environment. I read a variety of examples of why and why not it contributes to ones sexual preference. Then I realized that whatever I say about biology or someone’s upbringing doesn’t really matter because the fact that there are 2 genders (not including transsexuals of course) with compatible sexual organs and also serve as our sole means for procreation doesn’t form a concrete argument against homosexuality. I just found it hard to believe how long it took for people to agree that nature suggests that the majority of humans should have heterosexual sex.
So ultimately, it comes down to morality. That’s the motivation for my question about bestiality. Is it moral? It’s opinion based and I asked because I’m interested how a homosexual would view it.
“Some of those involved in the research are motivated not only by scientific but also by personal concerns. Many of the scientists who have been studying homosexuality are gay, as am I.”
The rest of the site does support homosexuality, which isn’t all that surprising
SO the question is, did you read my comment. Notice I say that the rest of this site DOES support the views of many homosexuals, WHICH ISN’T ALL THAT SURPRISING. Why isn’t it all that surprising? Because the author is gay. If you use the argument that scientific information from religious based websites are bias, why doesn’t that apply to pro-homosexual scientists? What’s the difference? Are homosexuals incapable of favoritism? I don’t think so.
Andygirl Quote: “With an animal, there is no consent….”
And how do you know that? My dog loves humping my leg. They’re instances of dogs having intercourse with women. Did they do that without consent? We can’t answer that. Is that the only difference between homosexuality and bestiality? How you reacted I’d think you’d give at least 10 reasons. Could I have some more please?
It’s no big secret that many heterosexuals have a different idea about morality then homosexuals, especially since that’s one of the main arguments for religious groups. When I talk to some of my friends about it, they’ll say, “because it’s not right,” without giving any real explanation. So I attribute this to different standards of morality. Are homosexuals difference from heterosexuals?? YES. So why is it wrong to think there may be different views about bestiality? I hope you see I’m asking these questions because I wouldn’t want to in person, but I am truly interested in the answers
Would you PLEASE stop acting like “homosexuals” are a unified group? There’s as much diversity amongst gays and lesbians as there is amongst breeders.
I do realize that but MY reason for bestiality being “wrong” is biology. Our sexual organs aren’t compatible. Obviously this same reason can’t be used by homosexuals since same sex relationships aren’t supported by the human body’s design. Do you see why I asked that now?
The premise is wrong. Human sexual organs are compatible (more or less) with those of a number of mammals. The vagina of a sheep is sized appropriately to accept a human penis. Many dogs are also sized to both accept a human and to penetrate one. The fact that no offspring can result from such a union does not preclude physical “compatibility”.
If anything, from a “physical compatibility” standpoint bestiality is more “natural” than homosexuality. But since I think your entire argument is a load of horse dung, I don’t see how you’ve proven anything except your own assinine prejudices.
Your sexual organs aren’t compatible with mine because I would never allow myself to have sex with an asshole like you. This has nothing to do with whether your tab A can be inserted in my slot B. It’s because you’re a fucking jerk who I wouldn’t allow to enter my property, let alone get anywhere near my body.
As to seeing why you asked, yes, I know why you asked. You think homosexuality and bestiality are both against “God’s Plan” and are unnatural, and you’re trying to find some rational argument that you can use to justify this. Your prior arguments have failed to convince us, so now you’re trying to use the general disapproval of bestiality as an introducer to lead to the inference that homosexuality must also be immoral. Well, it won’t work. We see right through you.
KellyM……i guess you don’t know how attractive men who act like assholes are to women (cynical reaction from being called an asshole )
And with animal sexual organs, they’re close but there are obvious differences. I’ve heard that sheep have a vagina that’s closest to human as any other animal. The main word here is “closest.”
I’m not trying to pass judgement. Actually this threat was to find out how some homosexuals view themselves and i had a curiosity about some view points that’ve been brought to my attention. I really don’t care if your homosexual or not, your still human. But the differences are there and that’s what i was inquiring about. What my argument is on this point is that beastiality is viewed negatively by most people. So was homosexuality in past years when it was thought of as a diease. It’s since been excepted by the general population as “normal”. It seems time has a great deal to do with the acceptance of “unnatural” activity. Does that mean in 30 years, bestiality will be viewed as natural? I believe this entire discussion has to do more with morals then science. Which brings me back to the question of if morality is an instinct?
Thank God for that! If heterosexuals were all complete fucking morons like Rook then you’d all be in a shitload of trouble. That would be “you people,” meaning the unified homogenous hetersexual-lifestyle-living community of breeders who “support heterosexuality”.