 |
|
|
|
| There Is No Harm In Homosexuality. Just As There Is No Harm In Bestiality With A Form Of Consent, Generally. And To Combine The Two Perverse Sexualities, Homosexual Bestiality Is Harmless. |
| Denial is everything the opposition will do summed up in one word.
My prediction they will make true. Though it's not much of a prediction, since that's what the hypocrites have always done. In my vote I destroy most of the arguments for homosexuality, most of which can be used for bestiality, showing just how similar the perversions are. I say "most of the arguments" because there are always new failures ready to be exposed. Anyone can claim anything. It's endless the amount of lame attempts at justifying the unjustifiable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think animals can provide a form of consent. If a male dog starts humping your leg, it's not a
leap in logic to assume that it would prefer something else besides your leg. That's not the issue.
A 6-year-old human can also hump your leg. That could also be construed as a form of consent. The
issue is about harm. If a 6-year-old human WANTS to do something that is harmful to him/her, we,
the adults, have the responsibility to protect them from their own choices. Similarly, if our cat
is in heat, and consents to have sex with us, we, as adult humans, have the responsibility to
protect it from its own choices. Stranger, can you figure out when something/someone is being
harmed by your behavior? Most of us can.
Here's the skinny: If you have an animal that won't be harmed, either physically or emotionally, by
having sex with you, then knock yourself out. If you want to have sex with your sofa, no harm done;
knock yourself out. If you want to have sex with a child, or small animal, or an unwilling partner,
harm is done; don't do it. It's pretty simple. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm voting on this side because the rest of tha farmyard animals especially tha idiotic jsg, ( who
is so idiotically green he now needs watering everyday of tha week), attacks the debater instead of
addressing tha actual debate, and absolutely agree that both homosexuality and beastility are two
perverse sexualities from tha normal sexual relationships, unlike all those on the against side are
accertaining.
Interesting debate stranger ~ well thought out excellent! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I have heard from some of you hypocrites that the fact that a penis can fit in a man's anus
justifies homosexuality.
Animals have anuses, too.
And some have vaginas, which might better receive a penis than an anus meant for excretion, not
insertion.
But there's a "g-spot" in a man's anus!
A zoosexual could claim the same about an animal's.
Let's see.. What other pathetic argument do the hypocrites use?
How could I forget?
The really popular parroted argument goes something like: "Why would they CHOOSE to be discriminated
against and ostracized by society?"
The same argument can be used by a zoosexual. Hence, my calling these advocates of the abomination
of homosexuality, hypocrites.
"But they love each other!"
You can say the same about some cases of bestiality.
And if love were a requisite for marriage... Then direct me to the secular law which says so.
Then there's the superficial argument of the definition of marriage.
Problems there are that there's more than one definition, and they're all subjective.
The homosexuality advocates changed the traditional definition from a man and his wife or wives, to
any gender combination.
Well, not only are most of you hypocrites for condemning bestiality while supporting another
perversion, you are hypocrites for acting as if a traditional definition of marriage is
unchangeable, since you have changed it/tried to for your agenda.
The same problems are in the definition of acceptable "consent."
An animal can show willingness to mate. Words are not needed.
Why impose your tradition over those who "harm none"?
Then there's the argument about it being natural, thus being okay.
"Animals are homosexuals in some cases, so why not us?"
The same argument can be made by zoosexuals.
"Animals do it interspecies in some cases, so why not us?"
By the way, you can thank Ballsalsa for prompting me to make another attack on this filthy
perversion you hold so dear.
The more you lie and deny in arguments against me on this, the more I will respond with a blitzkrieg
of truth.
MY RESPONSE TO JSH WHO CENSORS SINCE HE HATES EXPOSURE.
"When a person denies what others say about themselves, insists they are perverse and there is no
justification for them to be who they say they are...
The person should be red-flagged and monitored."
Wow. More hypocrisy.
I'm sure he denies what zoosexuals say about themselves, and believes that they are perverse and
that there is no justification for them to be who they say they are.
Just goes to show that homosexuality is supported by most of the same arguments bestiality is
supported by. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
There is harm in a person obsessing about homosexuality while constantly saying people are perverse.
When a person denies what others say about themselves, insists they are perverse and there is no
justification for them to be who they say they are...
The person should be red-flagged and monitored.
It is a prime example of why things like hate crime legislation and the patriot act are put into
motion.
Most people aren't living their lives fuming about other groups of people unless those other groups
of people are posing a threat to them. The ones that are, need to be watched. They are a minority
and if it stops one of them losing their mind and acting out their hostility...it's fine with me. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pedophilia is wrong, it victimizes a child who is not only sexually immature, but also who lacks the
cognitive development and life experience to know when s/he is being manipulated. Children do not
have the intelligence and experience to know what is best, and thus give consent. There is
overwhelming evidence that sexual contact for a child is traumatizing.
An animal could be sexually mature, but it is in no way more intelligent than a child. If we gave
animals the same rights that humans have then bestiality would be outlawed.
But most people do not care about other animals. They especially don't care about their sex
lives.
So, if someone wants to have sex with an animal. Okay, they should be allowed to. They just have to
accept the consequences of being shunned by most of society. That being said, at best, about 1 in 2
thousand people would want to have sex with some sort of animal. At best!
Should a human and another animal be able marry? The obvious answer is of course no. Marriage is an
institution given power by the authority of the state, and is designed to help human families
persist in the socioeconomic situation.
It's easy to fear and loath differences, and it's difficult for a straight man to understand
homosexuality. But for anyone who isn't some type of psycho-maniac, it's easy to understand love and
sexual feelings, and it's easy to acknowledge that what two consenting individuals do in their own
privacy is up to them. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
As much as I enjoy reading your sometimes bizarre, but often quite amusing arguments, Stranger, I
think this is too much. You cannot equate any form of consensual sex between human adults with
bestiality. I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous and I'm sure you're just pursuing it to create
controversy on here, so good luck to you. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
"I think people should be free to engage in any sexual practices they choose; they should draw the
line at goats, though." - Elton John
I disagree with homosexuality for many other reasons. There is a reason leaders throughout history
have had gay orgies to celebrate a merging of flesh and power - a sign of power to control common
man. Look at all the ruling empires through time and how they had homosexual elites... It goes on
and on... |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Actually. Kddan, Stranger did convince me of the merits, disapproval and longevity in the law
regarding bestiality. To compare it to homosexual marriage is, of course, absurd, but I do like the
idea of Stranger cuddling up to his precious lamb.
But my disdain is because Stranger continues to use the same ridiculous rhetoric in the fashion that
Ballsalsa denounced a few months ago. He quotes his opponents' opinions spitefully with no more
justification than "nanny-nanny-boo-boo..", He demands others offer definitive evidence despite
offering feeble evidence of his own arguments, and he refuses to even admit his own opinion, because
then he would have to justify his conclusions.
A boy needs to learn how to ride a horse. |
| |
 Lynn  02 Aug 2011 00:26
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
You're an idiot. No matter how many times we (the sensible majority) refute you on this site you
will never listen to reason. Go and grow up. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm going to completely and utterly disagree with you, on the grounds that you have created a straw
man argument.
The "penises fit in anuses" argument does NOT automatically make homosexuality okay. It simply
refutes the claim that homosexuality is unnatural, because it obviously isn't.
Yes, the same applies to any sexual act whatsoever unless it involves an artificial object. Yes,
paedophilia, rape, bestiality and necrophilia are all natural. That has nothing to do with anything.
The reason the four examples here are prohibited is to prevent exploitation. Animals cannot testify
in court to say that a given act of sex was consensual, homosexuals can. If you can find a talking
dog, that is a different matter entirely. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sign In
