The word is consent, and we do have laws about animal cruelty. We don’t really have any way of knowing if an animal enjoys it do we? It’s against the law to beat or starve a dog and it’s illegal to fuck a dog for the same reason. It’s cruel to the animal. To say that it’s in any way analogous to homosexuality is absurd.
Until an animal can say, “Yeah, go ahead and mount me, Oliver,” there is no consent. You cannot read an animal’s mind.
And comparing sex with animals, children and/or dead people to the relationship I have with my boyfriend is offensive and insulting, in case you were wondering.
Esprix
In Canada we say concent, eh?
We have laws against harming an animal but I disagree that they are based on the notion of consent. Do you get consent from your dog before you put it in a cage? I could run down a very long list of things we do to dogs, cats, birds, fish, or cows (slaughter) and none of them involve consent. To say “it’s illegal because the animal doesn’t like it” is irrelevant, if it out right harms the animal than yes, its wrong. However, its possible the animal might enjoy it. Probably more than the slop we feed it every single day.
I agree, and in no way meant to imply that it did.
Again, I don’t intend to compare the two acts. I’m simply adressing the issue of consent.
If it doesn’t harm anyone, it’s okay?
I guess it’s okay to hate Jews then, as long as you don’t actually harm them.
Or it’s okay to peek at your neighbor in the shower, as long as you don’t harm them, and peek in such a way that you don’t get caught.
I see no reason to accept the tenet that an action is automaticaly okay, as long as that it harms nobody.
I am Jewish by descent and I would say it is absolutely OK to hate Jews as long as you don’t harm them. I would even say it’s OK to peek in a shower as long as you don’t harm the peekee, but chances are you’re going to harm them either by them finding out about it, or you telling someone about it and word getting around, etc., in which case it is not OK.
Why don’t you tell us why homosexuality is not ok…and do it without resorting to a supernatural authority.
Yes, I’m still waiting to hear how my homosexuality harms anyone at all.
Oh, and thanks to all of those who are providing ample supply of what the OP was asking about in the first place.
Esprix
**
First of all, most Korean mothers are such that they would/do threaten suicide over such little things as their sons getting Bs instead of As.
My boyfriend’s Korean mother would probably have a heart attack if she knew that her son was atheist.
Does that mean that being an atheist is bad?
There are plenty of gays who parents love and accept them. Not loving your gay child because of their homosexuality is a far greater crime than being homosexual.
Come to think of it, I’d probably have a heart attack if my daughter became a born-again Christian, so Christianity has to go on that list too. 
JThunder, I can more or less see the point that you’re vaguely alluding to, but it might be both more courteous to your fellow posters, and more easy to grasp, if you actually said what it is you mean. (In other words, I can conceive of situations in which “mutual consent” does not make a given action performed by two persons “OK” – an obvious example is a suicide pact.)
As for the other parts, if you can show me a Jew who consents to being hated, or a neighbor who consents to being peeked at in the shower, then you might have an analogy that stands up.
Or how about this one: two people fall in love and, as is human nature, decide that they want to have sex, which society frowns on. So they make promises to each other, and suddenly it’s OK for them to do so. (You’ve seen this argument from hundreds of college freshmen, no doubt.)
Now, review that formula in the last paragraph and tell me what assumptions are unspoken and why they need to be present. If you can evolve a good answer for that, you may have a decent argument for your case.