Muslim headscarves (2 Viewers)

[Sonic]

power in which way.. self-gratification is not always the case

 

[withoutaface]

"That is true, but this is not a bad thing. It is because society advances. You could apply your argument to the 1800's in America; people would never have abolished slavery".

Why did people back then adopt the practice of slavery? It is simply because they didn't follow the religious teachings of their respective religions (every religion promotes peace amongst people). So therefore even though the major religions were established thousands of years earlier, people in America thought that it the practice of slave trade was moral. Think about it, and compare this to your argument concerning relative morality.

"Whatever the reason I don't really see an 'epidemic of bestiality' eventuating anytime soon!"

No one saw a epidemic of homosexuality 100 years ago but it is happening now. you say that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, in spite the fact the the statistics for the amount of diseases associated with the practice speak for themselves. Lets not forget that homosexuality actually is against the human species reproducing, rather it moves it towards extinction.

You also say that incest is wrong as it creates abnormal babies etc. Well can't people use contraception? This goes against your argument supporting fornication. You assume that people won't use contraception when they practice incest, yet you assume that everyone uses contraception when practicing fornication.

"I think you'd have to be really insane or something to want to, but I don't think it'd be "wrong" in the true sense of the word".

Why would you think it would be insane for someone to practice beastality, yet there is nothing wrong with it? It sounds abit paradoxial to me. In the back of your mind you know that it goes against the nobility of humans yet because there doesn't APPEAR to be anything physically wrong with beastality, you arn't against the practice.

We can see evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, but we see no evidence of bears fucking rabbits. This suggests that the genetic factors which lead to beastiality are incredibly rare in humans, too. And if homosexuality was banned these people simply would not have sex, so it does not lead to extinction, and besides, perhaps it's a good thing that the world population doesn't grow any larger than it already is. Secondly, contraception is fallible, and the consequences of incestually produced offspring would be horrible.

Personally I find beastiality disgusting, but I also find broccolli and genital piercings disgusting, and it would be absurd to ban those.

 

[Sonic]

Personally I find beastiality disgusting, but I also find broccolli and genital piercings disgusting, and it would be absurd to ban those.
why absurd???? not possible but why absurd??

 

[Not-That-Bright]

We can see evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, but we see no evidence of bears fucking rabbits.

Animals quite often fuck different species, or at least attempt to fuck... i can find you a gazillion videos on the interwebz.

 

[withoutaface]

Really? I doubt that.

[quote="Rape: power, anger, and sexuality." Groth et al]Accounts from both offenders and victims of what occurs during a rape suggest that issues of power, anger, and sexuality are important in understanding the rapist's behavior. All three issues seem to operate in every rape, but the proportion varies and one issue seems to dominate in each instance. The authors ranked accounts from 133 offenders and 92 victims for the dominant issue and found that the offenses could be categorized as power rape (sexuality used primarily to express power) or anger rape (use of sexuality to express anger). There were no rapes in which sex was the dominant issue; sexuality was always in the service of other, nonsexual needs.
[/quote]

10 characters

 

[Sonic]

Animals quite often fuck different species, or at least attempt to fuck... i can find you a gazillion videos on the interwebz.

hehe what kinda sites have you been to recently ROFL

 

[Not-That-Bright]

www.putfile.com

 

[withoutaface]

Personally I find beastiality disgusting, but I also find broccolli and genital piercings disgusting, and it would be absurd to ban those.
why absurd???? not possible but why absurd??

Because you eating broccolli does not harm me, nor does you piercing your genitals.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

10 characters

Yea but come on by that determination we can say that S&M is more about power than sex.

 

[withoutaface]

Animals quite often fuck different species, or at least attempt to fuck... i can find you a gazillion videos on the interwebz.

How many of those came about when the animals had access to others of their own species?

 

[veterandoggy]

We can see evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, but we see no evidence of bears fucking rabbits.

ROTFLMAO!!! dude, you just made my day!! *wipes laughter tears*

ahh, i think there should be video footage somewhere on the world wide web... but im not going to search for it.

 

[withoutaface]

ROTFLMAO!!! dude, you just made my day!! *wipes laughter tears*

ahh, i think there should be video footage somewhere on the world wide web... but im not going to search for it.

Find me something where an animal has been in regular contact with others of its own species (ie in a pack, flock, herd or whatever in the wild), and you'll have something similar to the circumstances leading to human beastiality.

 

[Sonic]

www.putfile.com

lolz

Because you eating broccolli does not harm me, nor does you piercing your genitals.

both won't be happing soon so don't worry about the offense

 

[veterandoggy]

Find me something where an animal has been in regular contact with others of its own species (ie in a pack, flock, herd or whatever in the wild), and you'll have something similar to the circumstances leading to human beastiality.

or wait till a male animal is in prime humping mode, then keep him starved of a female for a while and let him go on a different type of animal.

im not too sure about this, but ive heard ages ago of a dog humping someone on radio. the caller got stuck somewhere, and the dog came behind her and started humping her.

 

[withoutaface]

But that's not realistic. For example I've seen tions, which are lion/tiger crossbreeds on tv, but that only occured because the lion and the tiger were in the circus together and neither had any access to its own species. I suspect most other cases are similar.

 

[Sonic]

im not too sure about this, but ive heard ages ago of a dog humping someone on radio. the caller got stuck somewhere, and the dog came behind her and started humping her.

yeah it happens all the time my friends bird humps all the chairs in the room its good for a laugh..... oh and also withoutaface he has a mate in the cage as well

 

[withoutaface]

im not too sure about this, but ive heard ages ago of a dog humping someone on radio. the caller got stuck somewhere, and the dog came behind her and started humping her.

yeah it happens all the time my friends bird humps all the chairs in the room its good for a laugh..... oh and also withoutaface he has a mate in the cage as well

That's not beastiality though. The bird is not attracted to the chair.

 

[Sonic]

That's not beastiality though. The bird is not attracted to the chair.

no true 10 characters

 

[MoonlightSonata]

That is true, but this is not a bad thing. It is because society advances. You could apply your argument to the 1800's in America; people would never have abolished slavery.

Why did people back then adopt the practice of slavery? It is simply because they didn't follow the religious teachings of their respective religions (every religion promotes peace amongst people). So therefore even though the major religions were established thousands of years earlier, people in America thought that it the practice of slave trade was moral. Think about it, and compare this to your argument concerning relative morality.

Your point was that changing values over time is bad, and that the original religious values should be kept. Assuming that the religious values were good values, then that would be fine. But firstly, those values are not the result of some mystical God telling us them, they are the result of common sense. Secondly, there are religious values that are clearly out of date, morally bad and inappropriate in our time (for example, views against gay people).

Whatever the reason I don't really see an 'epidemic of bestiality' eventuating anytime soon!

No one saw a epidemic of homosexuality 100 years ago but it is happening now.

The two concepts are completely different; humans are not attracted to animals.

you say that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, in spite the fact the the statistics for the amount of diseases associated with the practice speak for themselves.

Such diseases can be prevented if proper precautions are taken.

Lets not forget that homosexuality actually is against the human species reproducing, rather it moves it towards extinction.

1. You imply that homosexuality is not natural. This is incorrect as homosexuality has been and is a real phenomenon in the animal world.

2. If you haven't noticed, the world has a bit of a population problem. We have so many people and fewer and fewer resources. The last thing we need is more people.

3. Many children in both western and eastern countries do not have parents. Adoption is a perfect way to provide a family for them.

4. The proportion of gay people to straight is something like 1:13. There are more than enough straight people to maintain the reproduction of the human race.

You also say that incest is wrong as it creates abnormal babies etc. Well can't people use contraception?

It depends on what you mean by incest. If you mean reproducing children, then that is extremely detrimental because of abnormalities. But if you mean just sleeping together then (while I personally feel unsettled by the idea) I do not see anything morally wrong from such behaviour. If you could show me that it had some bad consequences then I might change my mind.

This goes against your argument supporting fornication. You assume that people won't use contraception when they practice incest, yet you assume that everyone uses contraception when practicing fornication.

No, see the clarification by what is meant by "incest" in my comment immediately above. There is no inconsistency.

I think you'd have to be really insane or something to want to, but I don't think it'd be "wrong" in the true sense of the word.

Why would you think it would be insane for someone to practice beastality, yet there is nothing wrong with it? It sounds abit paradoxial to me.

No, there is nothing inconsistent in my position, because "insane" and "morally wrong" are two different things.

For example, you would probably be insane to stand on one leg and sing Christmas carols for several hours every second Tuesday, but there is nothing morally wrong in doing so.

Similarly with beastiality, because of the fact that humans are not physically attracted to animals, it would seem like you would have to have some sort of mental disorder to want to do such a thing to an animal. This says nothing about whether it is wrong or right, it just means that it is mentally abnormal (ie. not normal for a person to do). Normality does not necessarily mean "right".

In the back of your mind you know that it goes against the nobility of humans yet because there doesn't APPEAR to be anything physically wrong with beastality, you arn't against the practice.

No, for the reasons that I have given in the preceding comment. I do not believe that it is morally wrong, unless there are bad consequences. Just because I feel personally repulsed by the idea does not mean that it is wrong.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

No one saw a epidemic of homosexuality 100 years ago but it is happening now.

I can't believe i didn't spot this.... the EPIDEMIC of Homosexuality? ROFL!