51. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189210 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 8:07 pm

Comment #189081 by Quetzalcoatl

Animals are not capable of giving consent or withholding it. Given that that is the case, as I have said before, it seems to me that it would be reasonable NOT TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM.

This seems to be the accepted ethical point of view. Does that mean it cannot be challenged? How do you think homosexuality was viewed (and still is in many parts of the world) in the past?

Firstly, nobody decided that it was okay to slaughter and hunt animals but only have sex with them unless given consent. That is ridiculous, since, as you say, they are INCAPABLE of giving consent.

This is beginning to make some sense...

Therefore, morals and ethics were used to decide that it was not okay to have sex with them.

But this is where I think it fails. Morals and ethics are relative (at least in some circumstances), aren't they?. This issue about consent and sex (conveniently applied to animals, it would seem) sounds suspiciously rooted in religion, if you'll forgive my saying so. This is why I think it can be challenged. Much like the ethical concept that homosexuality was an abomination.

As for the "harm" point- this is equally absurd. And what do you mean by "scientifically"?

You can't go around claiming sex with animals unequivocally causes harm unless you can prove it (for said animal) using science. Just like a woman who claims she was raped is required to undergo a (scientific, not just ethical) examination to substantiate that claim.

Physical damage is easy enough to see. Is it your position that the sex is acceptable if there is no physical harm? What if (I know you won't like this) that argument were applied to rape- that it was okay provided there was no physical damage?

Because I'm challenging the notion of consent as you understand it. I don't equate sex with animals as equal, ethically, to sex with women.

And what does the fact that there are "many different" breeds of animal have to do with anything? Are you claiming that it is more acceptable to, for instance, have sex with a cow than a cat? Or vice versa? What is your point there?

The point is, even if you can demonstrate that sex with a particular animal or type of animal is harmful, this does not imply that sex with other types of animals is equally harmful or even harmful at all. So "harm" cannot be used as an argument to deny bestials their rights.

An inconsistency that, as I said, you created. Perhaps you could clarify something else- if, as you assert, we do not need consent to have sex with animals, what do we need to decide not to have sex with them?

An inconsistency I'm pointing out, actually. The existing laws against animal cruelty (without the assumption of sex necessarily being harmful), I think, suffice to decide that.

My judgement is clear, thank you. Feel free to try and prove otherwise.

I'd say the onus is on you to first prove it is so. And don't cherry-pick my seemingly negative statements about homosexuality in these thought experiments. Much of it is subject to your false interpretations. I've also said positive things with regard to gays.

And your constant efforts to equate homosexuality with bestiality have proven the accuracy of the idea that you are a bigot quite independently of anyone else's assertions.

And you, sir, are a bigot when it comes to bestials. See how easily this argument can be applied in their favour?

Also, you never clarified this statement of yours:

At least with bestials, the sex is "straight"

I gave an example of yet another argument bestials could use in their favour. Leaving out homo-bestiality for the moment, they might argue they have some legitimacy in at least coupling with the "opposite" sex, unlike homosexuality.

52. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189055 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 9:46 am

I'm quoting my own explanation again for the ignorant. I hope this puts an end to the "consent" argument. I'm really sick of hearing it.

Did we apply morals and ethics when deciding it was okay to slaughter and hunt animals (without their consent) but not to have sex with them unless given consent (which couldn't be obtained in any case)? And "harm" to animals on account of sex is difficult to prove (scientifically), especially given how many kinds of animals there are. This inconsistency leads to the conclusion that the "consent" argument is only valid when applied to humans (whom we don't typically slaughter and hunt).

Comment #189045 by Quetzalcoatl:

Firstly, what's with the quotation marks around women and rape?

In reference to them being topics you are apparently very fond of.

Others have commented that the mentally ill, coma victims, and small children are incapable of giving consent, yet you would not claim that it is acceptable to have sex with them, would you?

Because, you idiot, as mentioned above, the "consent" argument DOES logically apply to humans (this means if they can't give consent then no sex) but NOT animals. We do not need the consent of animals, and ONLY animals, to have sex with them. Is that really so difficult to understand?

In addition, if bestiality has any "implications" for homosexuality (and you have so far provided almost no evidence that it does), then by the same reasoning it would have the same "implications" for heterosexuality, would it not?

Of course. Did you not read this:

Comment #188426 by Appleby

I suppose your judgement is so clouded with the idea that I'm a homophobe, it must have slipped right by you.

ADDED:

The difference is, heterosexuality is the status quo (we can't outlaw it). Refer: Comment #188420

53. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189034 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 8:51 am

Comment #189032 by irate_atheist

Actually, given that you have conceded that animals cannot consent to you raping them, the onus is on you to prove that your activity does not cause unnecessary and undue suffering to the animal.

The one claiming it's "rape" is you. Onus is back on you.

54. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189033 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 8:47 am

Comment #189030 by Quetzalcoatl

It was you who claimed that moral/ethical issues are inappropriate for basing laws upon

Quetz, you cherry-picking bastard. Did you ignore this post?

Comment #188938 by Appleby

It is unreasonable to say that because, in your opinion, ethical issues have not been applied to slaughter and hunting, that they therefore no longer have to be applied to ANY aspect of our treatment of animals

More cherry-picking. The only ethical issue that doesn't apply to ANIMALS with regard to SEX is consent, as logically explained in: Comment #188950. It applies just fine to humans.

By that logic I could claim that, since ethical issues have not always been applied to women, leading them to sometimes be treated as mere breeding machines with no access to education or independent lives, that ethical issues should therefore no longer be taken into consideration on the issue of consent.

Why should ethical bases be appropriate for forbidding rape of a woman if they are not appropriate for forbidding the rape of a cat or a dog or a sheep? Do you therefore condone rape, Appleby? If you don't, what makes it different that you oppose it?

Once again, you are fruitlessly trying to drag me into the deep waters of "women" and "rape" when all we're talking about is the probable legitimacy of bestiality as an acceptable sexual orientation. You don't like the implications that may have on homosexuality because you're steeped in political correctness and mindless obedience to the dictates of modern Western society. Here's some advice: It's okay not to agree with your teacher every once in a while. You might learn something that way.

55. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189026 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 8:20 am

Comment #189023 by Philip1978

I think it is *you* who haven't been reading mine. More likely is that you're reading the comments of your buddies in the thrill of getting egged on.

56. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189022 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 8:11 am

Comment #189021 by Quetzalcoatl

I pointed out that the premise to your question was flawed in:

Comment #188950

So the question fails before it even needs to be answered. Or don't you get that part?

And the onus is on *you* to prove that sex with (insert animal here) is harmful. I don't have to assume it is by default. Especially if the human is female.

57. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189018 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 8:03 am

Comment #189014 by Quetzalcoatl

Didn't you read:

Comment #188955 by Appleby

What have you got to say to that?

58. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189017 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 8:02 am

Comment #189013 by Philip1978

What's the fault in my line of reasoning, Philip?

59. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189011 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 7:58 am

Comment #189008 by Quetzalcoatl

I answered your question and didn't even get a thank you.

60. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189007 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 7:53 am

Comment #189002 by epeeist

I guess we don't have to worry about harming the animal in those cases. ;) It might even enjoy it.

61. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189004 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 7:45 am

Comment #188961 by Corylus

Well sometimes, I think you might choose not to so that your friend isn't embarrassed in front of say someone like me, who you are trying to gang up against.

62. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188958 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 3:21 am

Comment #188957 by Tyler Durden

Your avatar says it all.

63. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188955 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 3:16 am

Comment #188953 by Quetzalcoatl

There is a considerable difference between slaughtering animals for food and having sex with them, and you know it. We have applied ethics to the slaughter of animals, in setting guidelines for how they should be slaughtered so as to attempt to minimise suffering.

Actually, I think slaughtering or hunting an animal to death (without its consent), humane or not, is worse than just having sex with it (which isn't necessarily harmful).

64. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188950 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 3:03 am

Comment #188944 by Quetzalcoatl

sigh. If I was that badly wrong, don't you think someone else would have told me by now?

Actually, no. Most don't bother and a few get some perverse pleasure out of letting you make an even bigger fool of yourself for all to see. As long as they remain silent, they can continue to derive this pleasure with impunity (because they could be wrong about you, after all).

Let me put it another way. In previous comments you have criticised the use of morals and ethics as arguments against bestiality, and emphasised the scientific approach. But why should we not apply moral and ethical reasoning in our treatment of animals if we do with our treatment of humans? Rape is a moral and ethical question.

Did we apply morals and ethics when deciding it was okay to slaughter and hunt animals (without their consent) but not to have sex with them unless given consent (which couldn't be obtained in any case)? And "harm" to animals on account of sex is difficult to prove (scientifically), especially given how many kinds of animals there are. This inconsistency leads to the conclusion that the "consent" argument is only valid when applied to humans (whom we don't typically slaughter and hunt).

65. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188938 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 2:39 am

Comment #188936 by Quetzalcoatl

You know what your problem is, Quetz? You think you've got something there but you don't. You picked up something I said, took it out of context, and then applied it to some other situation we are not even discussing. It is frankly an insult to think that I would assume we can base laws on science *alone*. Of course not. But it is often used to substantiate laws. Just like with gay rights (and their right to adopt, for example). So will you stop harping on about that muddle of a question?

66. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188933 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 2:29 am

Comment #188932 by irate_atheist

Is that really you in the pic?

67. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188931 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 2:28 am

Comment #188928 by mordacious1

It was between her and I. Unless she just chimed in without knowing what the hell was going on.

68. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188914 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 1:59 am

Comment #188898 by Philip1978

It was a joke. You'd have had to have followed the thread from a while ago to understand.

69. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188909 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 1:54 am

Comment #188896 by epeeist

1. So what? Naturalistic fallacy, anyone?
2. I'm only talking about bestiality. Associating it with things like pedophilia is uncalled for (and offensive to bestials). Your "evidence brush" is also a little too wide I think, to cover the entire scope of what might constitute paraphilia. At best, more evidence is needed. Maybe even on a case by case basis.
3. This doesn't follow. Because homosexuality has a biological basis? And what if one day science demonstrates that bestiality has a biological basis too?
4. Fine. You're obviously not referring to heterosexual and homosexual animals, I presume. In the case of animals, by some twist of logic, it is apparently okay to slaughter or hunt them without their consent (the reasons we do it are hardly justifications), but not okay to have sex with them without obtaining consent (which couldn't be obtained anyway). And claiming sex harms the animal requires proof (perhaps even on a case by case basis).
5. According to whom? And I resent the implication that human children are somehow equivalent to animals (even on this issue).
6. Sensible enough.
7. Replace "homosexuals" with "bestials".

Your personal dislike of me is irrelvant to the issue. I'm going to ignore it (as usual).

70. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188879 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Comment #188878 by mordacious1

So you are equating bestials to child molestors? Can you justify this (scientifically)?

71. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188875 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 9:40 pm

Comment #188873 by Frankus1122

I suppose, you would be flabbergasted to learn that some heterosexuals find homosexual acts disgusting. They must be bigots. It's the only explanation because you're heterosexual and you don't. Once again, how do you feel about bestiality, then?

72. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188872 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 9:23 pm

Comment #188866 by mordacious1

Unless you were deciding on their rights.

Comment #188869 by Frankus1122

Why is the only "legitimate" reason for personally disliking something necessarily "harm"? I'm not implying that being "straight" necessarily causes people to dislike homosexual acts (if you assumed this you must think I'm a bigot). I'm saying I think with me, it's what makes homosexual acts appear repulsive. If I didn't find homosexual acts repulsive, I might engage in them from time to time (for the heck of it). But I necessarily don't. I must be crazy according to you.

And "not thinking about bestiality" is no excuse to get around the problem with your argument. I don't often think about homosexual acts either but when the topic comes up, I still find it repulsive.

73. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188865 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Comment #188864 by mordacious1

I wonder if homosexuals would have accepted that reason.

74. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188863 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 8:54 pm

Comment #188861 by mordacious1

Why are you afraid to deal with the issue of bestiality? No one has successfully demonstrated that they should not also have equal rights as the rest of us.

75. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188860 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Comment #188855 by Frankus1122

So no one is supposed to find anything about anyone else disgusting because there are always some people who don't? And those who do find said things disgusting, must be crazy or bigots? How do you feel about bestials, by the way?

76. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188851 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Comment #188845 by Frankus1122

For starters, you may be born with a forked tongue (literally). I don't have a forked tongue. Because I don't have a forked tongue, I tend to find yours disgusting. Not that I think any less of you because of it.

77. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188843 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Comment #188842 by Frankus1122

What you said... the analogy... the assumption... it's just... so wrong.

78. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188835 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Comment #188656 by mordacious1

I wish you would quit saying that gay sex disgusts you because you're "straight". You're quite wrong here. I'm "straight" and it doesn't disgust me. Same goes for many others.

How can I be wrong by saying I *think* it disgusts *me* because I'm straight?

I personally don't dwell on it, as I don't dwell on my neighbor having sex with his wife. I don't care what other people do, with the exceptions already mentioned in this thread (ie. non consentual, with children, animals, etc.).

Nor do I. Did someone obnoxious here tell you I did, though? And you believed them?

The fact that you find this disgusting is not because you're straight, it is because you have issues. A lot of them. I would sincerely suggest that you seek professional help. Obviously, you're not going to change by taking the advice from some well-meaning posters on this site. I'm not trying to be mean or mordacious in my usual manner, I just think that you do need help.

Let me get this straight. You think I need professional help because I seem (in these thought experiments) to be challenging the incontestability of gay rights?

79. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188643 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 9:59 am

Comment #188637 by Tyler Durden

I'd love to.

Serious question: were you abused as a child?

Well, my dad used to beat me every now and then and I suppose by today's standards that's considered abuse. But I'd say no. I wasn't abused in any way as a child (and not sexually either, if that's what you meant).

Your pathological fear of homosexual males is crystal clear from your posts, and leaps from the page - wherever did this come from?

I'm not afraid of homosexuals. I kind of like them, actually. What you're reading on these pages are thought experiments. I still can't understand why everyone (and here of all places) is so sensitive about these issues. Ironically, the homosexuals themselves are the most "tolerant", if you will.

The act of anal sex between two men who both consent has nothing to do with you whatsoever.

True, it has nothing to do with me (and I wouldn't want it to).

Do you also feel the same way about anal sex between males and females?

It's funny you should ask that. I don't think it's quite the same thing. The disgusting part about anal sex, to me, is only if I have to suck my own dick afterwards. And I'm not Ron Jeremy.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion on such issues, however the language you use to describe male homosexuality is abhorrent, childish, and beyond reproach, but these feelings came from somewhere... care to share with the group??

The sex act between male homosexuals does indeed disgust me. But I think that's because I'm straight. However, I kind of like the sex act between female homosexuals (assuming they're attractive). That's about it actually. I can't recall much of the "abhorrent, childish, and beyond reproach" language, as you put it. Did I say stuff like that? Allow me to apologize if I did.

80. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188636 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 9:40 am

Comment #188634 by Tyler Durden

I forgot about you.

81. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188633 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 9:38 am

Comment #188632 by SharonMcT

I needed confirmation. And it doesn't surprise me.

82. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188630 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 9:35 am

Comment #188628 by Steve Zara

I agree. Enjoy your sabbatical.

83. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188627 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 9:33 am

Comment #188625 by SharonMcT

You're gay too, aren't you? I can tell from your picture.

84. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188626 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 9:32 am

Comment #188622 by Steve Zara

At least mordacious1 bothers to catch up.

85. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188620 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 9:25 am

Comment #188614 by Frankus1122

Like I've said before. These are thought experiments. I've also asked that you leave your preconceptions about me behind. They cloud your objectivity to the issues at hand. We have to look at things dispassionately to make any progress (in line or contrary to our desires). I had hoped... that of all the places on the Internet, on these boards, it would never be about "us" and "them". I'm frankly disappointed.

86. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188583 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 8:10 am

Comment #188578 by hungarianelephant

I guess the onus is on the party saying it's harmful. Or am I supposed to assume this by default?

87. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188579 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 8:06 am

Comment #188576 by Philip1978

Which animal would that be, Phil?

88. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188570 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 8:00 am

Comment #188569 by qomak

Sounds like bestiality is permitted too, then.

89. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188559 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:51 am

Comment #188551 by Rachel Holmes

This is the most intelligent response I've got all day. You must be gay. Yes, we'll see.

90. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188556 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:49 am

Comment #188553 by Quetzalcoatl

And you'll keep waiting.

91. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188554 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:48 am

Comment #188552 by epeeist

What's pathetic is trying to make this about me. I wonder if that's happened here before...

92. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188549 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:44 am

Comment #188547 by Rachel Holmes

Like I said earlier. One day.

93. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188548 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:42 am

Comment #188543 by hungarianelephant

Can you ethicallly justify homosexual rights? If you can, explain that to the rest of the world that doesn't (they apparently have different ethics than you). Want to use science now?

94. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188546 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:40 am

Comment #188543 by hungarianelephant

Your ethics is not the only ethics. Deal with that first. Why is your ethics better? Otherwise, stop harping on this nonsense.

95. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188542 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:37 am

Comment #188541 by hungarianelephant

And I thought we were talking about animals here.

96. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188540 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:33 am

Comment #188537 by Quetzalcoatl

You're splitting hairs and taking it out of context. If you rely on science to champion gay rights then you cannot deny science to bestials for the same rights.

97. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188538 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:31 am

Comment #188535 by epeeist

You can't jump back and forth. Justifying homosexual rights (mainly) through science but when it comes to bestiality saying it's now about ethics. Ridiculous.

98. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188533 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:27 am

Comment #188530 by Quetzalcoatl

What if I don't condone homosexuality. Got a problem with that?

99. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188526 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:22 am

Comment #188525 by Steve Zara

"Consent" again? Someone get me a baseball bat.

100. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188522 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:09 am

Comment #188514 by hungarianelephant

Then ethically, perhaps it can be argued that homosexuality should be outlawed. Wait... in many parts of the world it is! Maybe their ethics are different. But wait... yours is the correct one, right?