nehalem256
Lifer
- Apr 13, 2012
- 15,669
- 8
- 0
What if it was your beloved pet, Mr ScrathNSnitt, that Cletus chose to rape? Would you not take that personally?
Are you stupid. Lets say I own a cow. Are you allowed to slaughter and eat my cow?
What if it was your beloved pet, Mr ScrathNSnitt, that Cletus chose to rape? Would you not take that personally?
In both cases every PERSON involved in the relationship are consenting. And that is all that matters.
No it isn't and that is why this is begging the question. Your conclusions are true because you assume they are true in your premise. There are more things that matter in a marriage than that a sole person consents to it.
Your premise is still false and therefore all your conclusions still remain false.
I think what he's saying is that it doesn't matter how non-human animals feel about you having sex with them because it doesn't matter what you do to them.
No it isn't and that is why this is begging the question. Your conclusions are true because you assume they are true in your premise. There are more things that matter in a marriage than that a sole person consents to it.
Your premise is still false and therefore all your conclusions still remain false.
That's what he's saying for sure.
However, that has fuck-all to do with homosexuality. Homosexuality and bestiality are tied only in the sense that they involve sexual contact. They have nothing else in common. So bestiality has as much in common with homosexuality as bestiality has in common with masturbation.
His argument is:
Homosexuality involves sex
Bestiality involves sex
All things that involve sex are equivalent.
Therefore a homosexual relationship is equivalent to having sex with an animal.
He begs the question by assuming all things involving sex are equivalent because he never proves that true. Moreover, it's easy enough to prove it false. So the final conclusion is irrelevant because it relies on a conclusion stated in the premise (begging the question) which is false.
I think what he's saying is that it doesn't matter how non-human animals feel about you having sex with them because it doesn't matter what you do to them. I guess he thinks the concept of animal cruelty is pointless.
Why are you upset at other people for denouncing GLAAD. Isn't that our freedom of speech?
why blame A&E.
because they folded.
Exactly. I see you get it now!
A&E had all the power here and chose to suspend/fire the guy. All blame lies with them.
Exactly. I see you get it now!
A&E had all the power here and chose to suspend/fire the guy. All blame lies with them.
I stand corrected. Damn.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophi...States#State_and_local_laws_against_zoophilia
I count it as legal in 13 states.
My thoughts exactly. Said almost the same thing myself yesterday in a "real life" conversation.Nobody says the guy can't have an opinion. In this case his expressing his opinion conflicted with the image his employer was trying to project so they effectively suspended him.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences not sure why this is such a hard concept for the OP to grasp.
I stand corrected. Damn.
Well - it's a very distasteful legal act that most people find repugnant.Which of course goes back to my question. How is comparing homosexuality to a legal sex act disparaging to gays?
Which of course goes back to my question. How is comparing homosexuality to a legal sex act disparaging to gays?
Well - it's a very distasteful legal act that most people find repugnant.
If we compared your masturbation to being gay would you be offended?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#CatholicismThe Catholic Church teaches that "Masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder" and that "both the Magisterium of the Churchin the course of a constant traditionand the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_CatholicismHomosexuality is considered by the Roman Catholic hierarchy to be "disordered" in the sense that it is said to be "ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil"[1] and is not directed toward what the Catholic Church believes to be the unitive and procreative purposes of sexual activity.[2][3] While "homosexual desires" are not in themselves considered sinful, "homosexual acts" are. The Catholic Church has said of homosexuality, "as in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God"
This is complete garbage.
When voicing an opinion pisses off hoards of gay rights groups who lobby to have you removed/fired, your freedom has been removed.
You're free to keep putting lipstick on that pig.....