This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Why is zoophilia condemned and homosexuality not?
Why is this?
I am not talking about animals being forced to mate with humans, rather an intimate sexual relationship between both partners, to which both have consented in their own way and in which neither party is harmed.
It just seems like a double standard to me, I don't understand either zoophilia or homosexuality. The arguments for homosexuality and the arguments for zoophilia appear to be fairly similar. Yet one is outright condemned and the other is accepted as normal behaviour.
1. Both parties involved are consenting adults.
2. Both zoophilia and homosexuality are a sexuality, rather than a fetish.
3. Both involve an intimate relationship.
4. Both occur in nature.
5. Neither can result in offspring.
Thoughts? I don't even know why this came across my mind, I guess this is what happens when I do too much procrastinating.
Please note: I am not a troll, BNP supporter, a homophobe or a Zoophile, I am a student trying to have a sensible discussion and understand the logic behind people's opinions.
I am not talking about animals being forced to mate with humans, rather an intimate sexual relationship between both partners, to which both have consented in their own way and in which neither party is harmed.
It just seems like a double standard to me, I don't understand either zoophilia or homosexuality. The arguments for homosexuality and the arguments for zoophilia appear to be fairly similar. Yet one is outright condemned and the other is accepted as normal behaviour.
1. Both parties involved are consenting adults.
2. Both zoophilia and homosexuality are a sexuality, rather than a fetish.
3. Both involve an intimate relationship.
4. Both occur in nature.
5. Neither can result in offspring.
Thoughts? I don't even know why this came across my mind, I guess this is what happens when I do too much procrastinating.
Please note: I am not a troll, BNP supporter, a homophobe or a Zoophile, I am a student trying to have a sensible discussion and understand the logic behind people's opinions.
(edited 13 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Y..Huh?
Seriously?
Firstly, how would you know the animal is consenting?
There is no argument for homosexuality. It just is, some guys like other guys and some girls like other girls.
The difference is that you can be sure homosexuality is between to consenting parties. A man sleeping with a sheep is wrong because the sheep has no idea about love or morals or whatever. Its just getting ****ed.
Seriously?
Firstly, how would you know the animal is consenting?
There is no argument for homosexuality. It just is, some guys like other guys and some girls like other girls.
The difference is that you can be sure homosexuality is between to consenting parties. A man sleeping with a sheep is wrong because the sheep has no idea about love or morals or whatever. Its just getting ****ed.
Well humans can consent to a relationship. Animals can't. If they're just having sex, (because with an animal, it won't go deeper than that) then it's not a proper relationship, and it's just weird. Why would you ask such a stupid question?
Yeah, if you think about it it's a good point, and not that ridiculous or trollish (as it sounds).
Original post by imperial maniac
Why is this?
I am not talking about animals being forced to mate with humans, rather an intimate sexual relationship between both partners, to which both have consented in their own way and in which neither party is harmed.
It just seems like a double standard to me, I don't understand either zoophilia or homosexuality. The arguments for homosexuality and the arguments for zoophilia appear to be fairly similar. Yet one is outright condemned and the other is accepted as normal behaviour.
1. Both parties involved are consenting adults.
2. Both zoophilia and homosexuality are a sexuality, rather than a fetish.
3. Both involve an intimate relationship.
4. Both occur in nature.
5. Neither can result in offspring.
Thoughts? I don't even know why this came across my mind, I guess this is what happens when I do too much procrastinating.
I am not talking about animals being forced to mate with humans, rather an intimate sexual relationship between both partners, to which both have consented in their own way and in which neither party is harmed.
It just seems like a double standard to me, I don't understand either zoophilia or homosexuality. The arguments for homosexuality and the arguments for zoophilia appear to be fairly similar. Yet one is outright condemned and the other is accepted as normal behaviour.
1. Both parties involved are consenting adults.
2. Both zoophilia and homosexuality are a sexuality, rather than a fetish.
3. Both involve an intimate relationship.
4. Both occur in nature.
5. Neither can result in offspring.
Thoughts? I don't even know why this came across my mind, I guess this is what happens when I do too much procrastinating.
Stop trying to justify your dirty deeds. ITS WRONG
Original post by Fonix
Y..Huh?
Seriously?
Firstly, how would you know the animal is consenting?
There is no argument for homosexuality. It just is, some guys like other guys and some girls like other girls.
The difference is that you can be sure homosexuality is between to consenting parties. A man sleeping with a sheep is wrong because the sheep has no idea about love or morals or whatever. Its just getting ****ed.
Seriously?
Firstly, how would you know the animal is consenting?
There is no argument for homosexuality. It just is, some guys like other guys and some girls like other girls.
The difference is that you can be sure homosexuality is between to consenting parties. A man sleeping with a sheep is wrong because the sheep has no idea about love or morals or whatever. Its just getting ****ed.
Really? I'm pretty sure my dog can communicate quite effectively that he is enjoying himself when I stroke him, wagging his tale etc.
"Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in their own way. It is not an uncommon practice for dogs to attempt to copulate with ("hump") the legs of people of both genders." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia)
Some people like animals, just in the same way some guys like other guys.
Original post by Bellrosk
Original post by Bellrosk
OP is a BNP supporter, ignore this post.
Why should we ignore a BNP supporter?
You're right, OP; there is no logical reason to label cross-species sex as immoral (then again, nothing can logically be referred to as immoral). However, humans can't marry animals because animals cannot express consent for marriage. Gay men and lesbian women can. That's where the distinction lies, in the extent of the relationship.
(edited 13 years ago)
This has got to be a troll.
I'd love to see you in court trying to prove that a horse gave you consent.
Original post by imperial maniac
"Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in their own way. It is not an uncommon practice for dogs to attempt to copulate with ("hump") the legs of people of both genders." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia)
"Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in their own way. It is not an uncommon practice for dogs to attempt to copulate with ("hump") the legs of people of both genders." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia)
But that isn't showing consent, or a will, to have sex with the person.
Dogs naturally hump anything! Pillows, other dogs, shoes, etc etc. Doesn't mean they want sex with the object / thing.
Original post by Bellrosk
OP is a BNP supporter, ignore this post.
No I'm not.
But if I was, how would that make this thread or my opinion invalid in any way?
Original post by magnum.opus
Why should we ignore a BNP supporter?
I said 'ignore this post'.
And why? Because I don't know if you've noticed but we're on TSR right now where we get these types of ridiculous and offensive threads started by right wingers about twenty times a day. The conversation has been done and dusted, there is no need to validate the op's offensive viewpoint by replying to him.
Original post by imperial maniac
No I'm not.
But if I was, how would that make this thread or my opinion invalid in any way?
But if I was, how would that make this thread or my opinion invalid in any way?
See above.
Original post by Bellrosk
Original post by Bellrosk
I said 'ignore this post'.
And why? Because I don't know if you've noticed but we're on TSR right now where we get these types of ridiculous and offensive threads started by right wingers about twenty times a day. The conversation has been done and dusted, there is no need to validate the op's offensive viewpoint by replying to him.
And why? Because I don't know if you've noticed but we're on TSR right now where we get these types of ridiculous and offensive threads started by right wingers about twenty times a day. The conversation has been done and dusted, there is no need to validate the op's offensive viewpoint by replying to him.
But the OP raised a serious question... Remind me to reprimand you for your idiocy when I arrive at Bristol next year
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
