Why is it absurd? Do you think that people don’t care enough about protecting animals to make laws about it? There are plenty of laws that prohibit the abuse of animals. If we protect animals from being beaten and tortured why shouldn’t we protect them from being raped?
I don’t think it is absurd to make laws to protect animals from abuse (be it sexual or otherwise). I do think it is absurd to attribute the outlawing of bestiality to concern over animal rights.
Tsk. That’s not quite what I was talking about. I’m saying that the pure attraction between one man and another man, or one woman and another woman isn’t natural. You can’t use animals in this case. There’s no such data on homosexual animals.
Sure there’s lots of data on homosexual behavoir in animals. But there is a big differnce between a man being attracted to a man and only a man, and homosexuality arising out of socail circumstances.
The differnce is between a biological homosexuality and a social one.
The entire nature vs. nurture argument as applied to homosexuality in people is a red herring. We should not let it sidetrack the whole debate. It doesn’t matter to me if is any more natural than blonde hair out of a bottle. It should not matter anyway. No matter the cause, some people are homosexual, some are bisexual, some are heterosexual. Society has to deal with it.
If we learned tomorrow that homosexuality is caused by watching too many Tex Avery cartoons and can be “cured” by drinking copious amounts of chocolate milk, that too would be irrelevant. Not everyone would want to change, and no one should be forced to reset their sexual preference/orientation. Why do we even bother to discuss this “born that way crap”?
Secularly, homosexually is inconvient because it means that not everyone fits some cookie cutter like pattern that society uses to base laws and programs on. As a programmer, I understand how exception handling can be tedious, but I don’t decide not to write routines handle certain exceptions because I don’t like that choice. I have to write programs to deal with any data given. Society needs to function for all, not just those who fit the molds.
Grim_Beaker, “Since we can eat the legally executed animal is there nothing illegal about eating a former prison inmate that is also legally executed?”
I don’t see a problem with using people as a food source. MMMM Soylent Green. The main issue has already been pointed out, the body is for the family to grieve over. It is not for your pleasure. It is the same argument as above.
“Does the inability of the horse to consent to the work make it slavery? What about chickens laying eggs?”
It is a form of slavery that is paid in food, shelter, and general care. Perhaps if the animals had pockets they could keep a paycheck. I don’t think it is wrong to keep food. If you do, go on a hunger strike. The horse issue is interesting but now that most horses have been domesticated with few exceptions and with less wild space for them to run around in it would be very tough to impossible for a horse to survive out in the wild. At first it was slavery out of want and now it is a form of slavery out of necessity. I doubt that a horse could be found in the wild in Europe as it is fairly urban overall.
“I posit that bestiality is illegal because most people feel that it’s inherently wrong not because an animal can’t give consent and IMHO I feel that it’s absurd to think that the law was enacted to protect animals from being raped.”
Well of course bestiality is morally wrong. The reason I think and others believe that it is morally wrong is becuase the animal can’t give consent.
Back to Ted, “…There’s no such data on homosexual animals.” and, “Sure there’s lots of data on homosexual behavoir in animals. But there is a big differnce between a man being attracted to a man and only a man, and homosexuality arising out of socail circumstances.”
You are contradicting yourself. I know what you are trying to say I think. You are trying to say that there is no documentation on gay animals which is completely false. If I can find the links again I will post them below but in overcrowded situations there seems to be a large instance of homosexual mice. Mountain goats according to one researcher who has studied them his entire life seem to be primarily gay and incidently heterosexual. There are even instances in the insect world, reptilian world, and the fish world. Dolphins are hedonists and will have sex with practically anything male female…whatever.
“The differnce is between a biological homosexuality and a social one.”
You don’t want to open this can of worms. The million times we argued it before the consensus was basically that homosexuality is not a choice and has probably arisen out of a combination of biological and social circumstances. I believe it is more biological as about half or more of the gay people that I know knew they were gay before the age of five but just didn’t know the words.
Links for gay animals: (I couldn’t find the exact links that document the information listed above.)
http://www.allaboutsex.org/AnimalSexuality101.html
Pay attention to Susan MacCarthy who is one of the leading experts on animal sexuality in the above and below link.
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea2.html
http://www.gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/events/031799ev.htm
There are so many other studies and listings that I can’t possibly list them all here. This is just a starter. If you did some minor searching those and many others would come up.
HUGS!
Sqrl
I’m sorry, but when did our nice thread about homosexuals become one where we are talking about eating dead people?
This is how bad rumors start, you know…
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, four weeks, two days, 14 hours, 11 minutes and 29 seconds.
4863 cigarettes not smoked, saving $607.95.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 2 days, 21 hours, 15 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]
What is unique about sex that it alone requires for the animal to give consent? No other action that one does to an animal requires consent, including many that would require such if done to a human. As long as the animal is not physically in pain, what’s the harm being done to it? Is it going to be emotionally traumatized? Is it’s ability to have a meaningful relationship with another animal going to be affected?
This whole “issue” sounds contrived to me.
Want to try an experiment? Ask some random acquaintances around you why they think having sex with animals is wrong. I would be extremely surprised if the majority said it was because animals can’t give consent. I’m not saying thats not part of the reason the law was enacted… what I am saying is that if anything its a very minor reason.
YES, YES. We have done this argument countless times here and it boils down to the reason why it is morally wrong to fuck animals is because they can’t give consent. Taadaa. Do you have a better reason why it is morally wrong? I would like to hear it.
HUGS!
Sqrl
Just to be contentious I guess, I’ll jump in here Sqrlcub. Yours is just one reason, and a good enough one for most cases. But what about when the human is the recipient of the act? In this case, the animal is acting with volition, yet I doubt that many folks would say “Oh, well. If the dog is doing her then it’s okay.” Assuredly some would, but I submit that the overwhelming majority would still maintain that it was wrong. It’s just socialized in people as a sick, perverse activity. I don’t think that the Bible is the main argument in this case, even though the prohibition is in there. It’s just a common prejudice among the religious and non-religious alike that it is simply something that is NOT done.
And, of course, the issue is not at all closely analogous to homosexuality. Yes, both are proscribed by the Bible, and both cause some people to react with distaste, and both have the “unnatural” argument used against them (whether fairly or not). That is where the similarity ends, however. There is a world of difference beyond this point.
Pthalis, that is an interesting point. When the animal is topping a person we as people think it is less wrong than when the person fucks the animal. So you think that since the animal is somehow giving his CONSENT by active participation in this activity that it is ok?
I was actually responding to the part about people topping animals not them topping them. I see your point and I think it is valid. I think it is more sad than anything that some people would go there either way. I would still say that the animal when topping the person isn’t really giving its consent exactly even though it is an active participant because we don’t really know what the animal wants. I don’t know about you but when my cat stares at the wall for hours on end I don’t know what he is thinking. Thus when the animal is fucking a person is it acting on instinct to put its peepee in the hole or is it doing it for purely sexual gratification? That opens yet another debate that was here that ended with a split vote.
The problem with these types of threads (that deal with homosexuality and consent of a different species) is that with homosexuality, religion clouds all the discussion and with consent there are instances that can go back and forth either way but we can’t really know because we don’t know what the animal truly wants. That is why it can’t give consent. That is also why a child can’t have sex with an adult. Basically consent requires someone who can legally be bound by a contract.
HUGS!
Sqrl
Perhaps that is because a dog is not capable of giving informed consent. I don’t believe there is another species on earth capable of meeting the standard of informed consent as defined by human laws. If we ever meet members of an alien race of roughly human intelligence I wouldn’t be bothered by the idea of people having sex with them. Heck, it happens on “Star Trek” all the time. Although I did always wonder if the Miss Manners of the future came up with a delicate way to find out ahead of time exactly what your new alien friend has got inside her/his/its spacesuit. It could be embarassing if she/he/it had parts that you didn’t know what to do with.
of course… the question is what if the family is the one who’s eating it? Or… whatever else to it?
Wouldn’t the rest of society find that still pretty repugnat?
Totatly side note, but that raises an interesting point in our own history… would a slave have been able to surive in the wild (or society) given the society w/o a restructering of society? hmmm…
**
Ok. How about castration? That’s a perfect example. The animal can’t give consent to that, and it IS a form of sexual abused. Specficaly, sexual molestation. Is it ok that we spade and nuter our pets even though they don’t gie consent?
**
**
No, I’m making a distinction that most people assume is false today.
I’m making a distinction between homosexuality the act, and homosexuality the animal.
Namley a person can live their whole life having hetrosexual sex, but still be a homosexual, whereas another person can have a lot of homosexual sex and still be a hetrosexaul.
The differnce is which you would naturaly perefer given the choice and an equal opertunity to exercise that choice.
bingo. it’s overcrowded… but do they naturaly go that way?
Mmmm, some life that guy had, huh? =] Still, I’d prefer to see his research and draw my own conclusions.
Now that’s a vaild example. Dolphins being promesquous. Still, that’s more of a bisexuality, and bisexuality could easily arise given natural selection. Homosexuality is a bit harder to explain.
I personaly don’t know. I don’t think a person themself really can tell though as it is VERY hard to distinguish social wants from biological wants. I for one knew that I was very differnt when I was a kid. (don’t we all?) Another reason I don’t buy the “homosexual since 5” thing is because given my own experince, and many of the hetrosexual people I know, they didn’t find either sex sexual attractive until they started to hit puberty…
I supose I should say right here that, ** I don’t think it makes a differnce ** why somone is the way they are. But I know it makes a differnce to some people, and while it isn’t a good argument to use against homosexuality, it is an interesting topic.
I’ll check her book sometime, “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity”. The rest of those I think I’ll avoid though. When I say sources, I mean more along the lines of scientific journals and the data recording and/or experiments recorded.
It’s VERY hard to find reliable sources either way. And for the experiment to conclusivly show an animal is homosexual it would need to show that given a prefrence of a same sex mate or an opisite sex mate with an EQUAL opertunity to obtain one, the animal will choose the same sex mate.
I know of no such studies. And if there were any I would then ask how such a trait could be passed down through generations, as one would obviously think that an animal who only copulated with its own sex wouldn’t have a new geneation. So far I haven’t seen any theory as to how a trait like pure homosexuality could be passed on.
Again, I honestly don’t think the results of such a thing matter in the moral sense. But it does intrige my curiosity. =]
Lamia said:
Well, you could always use your imagination!! 
Ok, this has come up three times in my reading of this thread, so. Despite my own objections to eating meat, I can see drawing a line between quick and hopefully relatively painless deaths, and engaging in protracted cruelty. At the very least, allowing the second things the barriers of moral behaviour between humans. i.e. encourages non-consensual sex in general.
**
**
The difference is symbolic. A corpse was once human. We respect the recently, and recognizably human dead to maintain the boundaries of morality. It is a problem with humans that our empathy is strongly bound to form and appearance, so anything strongly tied to human (like a recently dead corpse) falls under that category.
The point is, you haven’t given a valid reason as to why these two things are tabbo, and shouldn’t be banned as well.
<snipped>
**
Not just any inanimate object, surely you feel some twinge of empathy at seeing a dead human, someone who was once like you? Anything approaching respect perhaps?
If not, your morality is either highly reasoned, or non-existent. I prefer it when people have moral “reflexes”…
The animals don’t seem to mind. Why are you saying it’s cruel? If you’re cruel to an animal it reacts, either by trying to get away or attacking… not by mounting you as… .well… shrug
And as for protracted cruelity, you don’t eat meat, you probably know how they keep a number of those animals or kill them. With pigs, you slit them and let them bleed to death, with chickens we keep them locked up in a cage less than a foot cubed and cut off their beaks so they don’t attack one another, and I’m not going to even get into veal.
Given a choice, would you rather be raped, or raised in a confined area smaller than your room only to be killed, and quite possibley slowly? I agree rape is cruel, but saying we don’t do it to animals so as not to be cruel… well shrug I think that’s being hypocrital.
That sounds religously suspect to me.
**
Not just any inanimate object, surely you feel some twinge of empathy at seeing a dead human, someone who was once like you? Anything approaching respect perhaps?
If not, your morality is either highly reasoned, or non-existent. I prefer it when people have moral “reflexes”… **
[/QUOTE]
shrug I still think your “empathy” is an offshoot of religious notions. If I see a dead body now, sure I feel sad, If I see somone screwing a cow, I think they are demaning what it means to be human.
From this I can understand how somone would feel that homosexuality is wrong. They would feel the same way about somone who is still sleeping with his wife four years after she’s died. Both of them are along the lines of love, but some people think it demoralizes humanity. They would think that it’s not showing respect to sleep with somone of your own sex to humans.
I don’t see how you can say one is completely religiously motavated, while the other is not.
By the way, I have run across a dead person before. When I was much much younger. Point of fact is that I didn’t feel sad, I felt curious. I didn’t know who this person was, or what had happend. I knew he was dead, but more than that, nope.
Well, really this is becoming a mish-mash of ideas tangential to the OP, but I’ll try to get back there a little. I don’t really like lumping things like necrophilia, beastiality, incest, or pedophilia in with homosexuality, because I think that it is pretty prejudicial to homosexuality to be associated with that kind of company. But, the scriptural judgements against them combined with societal prejudices seem to keep tying them together in debates. So, here I go again:
The way I see it there are intermingling forces that determine what is immoral and what isn’t.
1. Scripture Some interpretations of scripture simply declare by fiat that the above activities are immoral. Not every interpretation does so however.
2. Rights Basically, one of the things we value in general is that people have a reasonable expectation to self-determination in sexual matters. When sex is the subject, consent extends even to animals despite the fact that we do not recognize their possession of many other rights. Many times individual rights can conflict with one another.
3. Harm Avoiding or preventing harm when we can and when such harm is not in the interest of the perceived greater good is generally agreed to be the moral course of action.
4. Socialization We absorb our standards of normalcy from the culture around us every day, and they are reinforced both deliberately and unconsciously. This is often the source of the “unnatural” argument.
There may be reasons other than these that people would judge sexual matters immoral, but I can’t think of any right now.
In the absence of the first three, socialization is enough for many people to declare something immoral, even though such a declaration is not founded on anything rational, if they react negatively enough to the idea. Lots of my reactions are, under analysis, based mainly on socialized ideas. People all over the world eat bugs, and have at various times and places embraced cannibalism. Neither of these seem to be logically immoral in and of themselves. (In other words, the person to be eaten wasn’t intentionally killed, and he has no objecting family, etc.) However, I would eat a plate full of grasshoppers before I would ever consider taking a bite of human casserole. On the one hand, eating bugs is just gross, while eating a person is wrong. (Emotionally speaking anyway.) The concept of practicing cannibalism is just too foreign for me to ever accept, while I could, if forced, eat a bug.
In the same way, I think that even if you grant the dog in my previous example as suffering no harm, and not having any rights violated whatsoever, most people will still say it is immoral. (Scriptural arguments are out because of the OP.) It may not be a rational statement, and they may not be able to defend it, but I think they would say so nevertheless. It is behavior too far outside our societal norms, and it evokes too strong a revulsion.
“My darling, my hamburger!” ::giggle:: ewwww!!
OK, back to the OP…look, if you want to comprehend folks’ attitudes towards homosexuality, you have to look at the institution of heterosexuality, which is where most of the folks with the attitudes we’re talking about are coming from. The “Institution of Heterosexuality” means more than just “straight got established as normal and obligatory”, you know.
First off, the folks with the attitude are far more often guys, despite an occasional Phyllis Schlafly or Anita Bryant.
Second, the target of the attitudes are also far more often guys, despite an occasional Falwellian remark about “Ellen Degenerate”.
With that in mind, consider that most of us guys, when first exposed to your basic average mainstream sexual indoctrination scripts, were NOT sex-crazed female-form staring adult hetero guys, but were instead children. When you are 10 or 12, you learn that it is important to ‘prove you’re not a sissy faggot’, but (assuming you think you aren’t one, assuming you would ncessarily know enough to KNOW) you aren’t likely to prove this to yourself or other folks by bedding the cute blond 4th grader sitting in the next row over. Indeed, the command is NOT to prove that you ARE a flaming het – many of the other kids would think you were a bit on the creepy side if you were obsessed with making out with girls at that age – but to prove that you AREN’T a queer.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot the obvious: “being a queer”, when you are 10 or 12, doesn’t have much to do with getting caught making out with other little boys either; it has to do with being GIRLY! ::insert collective Ewwww!!! here::
So you learn that you prove yourself to be an authentic normal guy by being NOT like the girls and IF you ARE like the girls you are, by definition, a QUEER BAIT SISSY FAGGOT and yeah, as you get older and think about it more often, you acknowledge that this implies that guys like that want to have sex with each other instead of with girls. Or perhaps that guys like you want to have sex with the NORMAL guys, the ones taunting and yelling “queer bait sissy faggot” and you and jumping on you and beating you up and shooting spit wads into your hair in class and so on.
Heck, the normal guys do everything but dip the hair of sissy faggoty guys like me into inkwells, so you can tell that we’re just kind of naturally predisposed to want to go to bed with them, and you can see how disgusted they are about that, right?
::rolleyes::
Well, they didn’t want to be on the receiving end of the treatment they dished out. Therefore, hateful condition; and hateworthy condition if you ask them.
Meanwhile, for those of us who were more likely to get called things like that, well, if our appetites ended up NOT running in the predicted direction, it gets to be kind of like having lima beans shoved under your face all the time when you don’t like them, after awhile you just wanna say “Ewwww, gross!”
I reckon none of this does wonders for the early self-esteem of guys who DO find guys attractive either.
You know what? I just realized somthing…
I’ve been arguing for points in a position that I really don’t support (viz. homosexuality being wrong), and I’m arguing it stronger than most things I do suport. Is that f/u or what? =] I think I’ll take a break from this. Hehe.
You know what’s interesting… or odd, or whatever… is that all the logical arguments in the world aren’t going to change a persons position. Seriously, how many of you here would change your position if someone did come up with a completely valid reason why homosexuality is wrong?
I guess when it comes to our beliefs logic is only secondary.
Course you all knew that 
[grumble]
I just read through this entire thread and didn’t learn anything new. In fact, I have read the same things that I read last week and the week before and the week before that.
The problem with relativistic morals is that you must examine the morals relative to something, even if it’s completely unrelated.
I can compare homosexuality to anything…ANYTHING…and support my point. The other side can compare homosexuality to anything and prove their point. In the end, what will we do? Reinforce our stance in our own mind and walk away thinking the other side is an idiot.
Homosexuality is NOT the same thing as heterosexuality. It is NOT the same thing as pedophilia, necrophilia, or bestiality. It’s not even the same as slavery, Hitler, or crayons for that matter.
Homosexuality is homosexuality. Let’s examine it on its own merits, shall we?
First of all, I’m just going to chuck the “natural/unnatural” argument out the window. Mankind doesn’t have a clue as to what nature intended. We are constantly second-guessing it, tweaking it, trying to enhance it to our needs.
Then there’s the “it’s not normal” argument. Another case of relativistic moralizing. You say “unnormal like schizophrenia” I say “unnormal like genius IQs”. Again, we have proved nothing, except our own case in our own mind.
You know what…I’m grumpy, I just want to get to the meat of my post.
I’m homosexual. You can say “no, you’re not. You’re confused/dysfunctional/secretly in pain” all you want, but it won’t make it true. I am in my own skin and I know one thing, “homosexuality makes me feel complete, heterosexuality does not.” Whether it’s a choice, genetic, biological, whatever does make a difference to me. I am happy. Period.
If you want to equate my happiness to being selfish. Fine, that’s your perogative. It’s also my perogative to tell you taht you have no clue about what you’re atlking about.
So go ahead and debate to your hearts content, but just remember that you are debating about real people. People who have a better idea about what is going on in their head, bodies, and hearts than you. Go ahead and second-guess them. Go ahead and deny that they have any value. I don’t much care anymore. I know my true value and nothing anyone says will change that.
So I’m going to run along and continue living my life in a way that is healthiest for me and leave you to your intellectual discussion.
[/long, miserable day, grumpy rant]
p.s. That was mainly a rant aimed at all the people I have ever debated with in the past and not necessarily the participants of this thread.