You can have a lot of fun with genitalia. You should have a lot of fun with them. But that fun is your own business. I don’t care what you do with yours, and you’ve got no business caring about what I do with mine, as long as everyone involved is consenting and it doesn’t scare the horses.

The concern about sex with animals is a very, very silly diversion put out by people fighting against homosexuals rights. It’s not an argument that should be taken seriously. It’s an argument that should be ridiculed

Posted: October 23rd 2010

See all questions answered by Dave Hitt

If you are going to use the slippery slope fallacy then I think you need to back up to the point when a human first felt love. Once love is felt, who knew what that could lead to? That pesky feeling should have been nipped in the bud way back then!

Posted: October 22nd 2010

See all questions answered by logicel

I find it really weird that theist discussions about homosexuality often end up listing bestiality. Perhaps it’s because the people discussing it don’t understand how often homosexuality occurs in animals. It could also be because many of the most virulently anti-gay people turn out to be gay themselves, and repressing sexual feelings like they do can easily push one to outside the limits.

Or, to put it another way, that line of reasoning says more about the people who are making the argument than about homosexuals.

Anyway, back to your question. It’s really very simple.

Permissible behavior is all about informed consent. If the two (or more) parties involved can make an informed decision to participate in a behavior, then it’s okay – I don’t think there is any reason why I/We/Society should tell them that what they want to do is wrong.

If there are parties that can’t make informed decisions (animals/children/people of diminished capacity/people with mental problems), then it isn’t okay.

What I find annoying about this is that this question has been addressed for a lot of years already, and society has already decided that a lot of deviations – including sex with animals – are not okay.

Why homosexuality – which is not a deviant behavior by any definition – is brought into this discussion is a bit beyond me. Why people think that if you decide homosexuality is okay you will necessarily have to tolerate any behavior is beyond me.

I also have no idea what you mean by secular/liberal extremist. It’s a sad day in America if the idea that people have a right to do what they want as long as it doesn’t impinge on the rights of others is considered to be extremist.

For sake of full disclosure, I’m hetero and have been married for 24 years.

Posted: October 21st 2010

See all questions answered by Eric_PK

As you know, homosexuality is looked down upon in the old testament.

However, Jesus himself never said anything about homosexuality, in fact the only thing he really talked about was non judgment, and unconditional love.

What fatuous nonsense. If the Bible is to be believed at all, Jesus is the god of the old testament, and he will return to the world again to stand in ultimate judgment, condemning billions to an eternity of suffering in a lake of fire. Not to mention that the new testament does say that all homosexuals will have their place in said lake. But we’ll let this slide for now, disgusting as it may be.

This is an important point because as a Christian I wonder where will the secular/liberal extremist stop, and draw the line?

There is nothing extreme about demanding that people who are born homosexual are treated as equals to people who are born heterosexual.

I’m talking about bestiality. Obviously this is looked down upon, but so was homosexuality for such a long time around the world obviously (besides Athens, I am aware).

No, actually; homophobia comes almost entirely from the Abrahamic traditions. In many other world religions, homosexuals were even given privileged positions as priests or priestesses. Suffice it to say that homosexuality was not so universally reviled historically as you’ve been led to believe.

Giving legal equality to every human being does not mean we need to allow humans to rape animals or children.

But how do we know that fifty years from now the people who claim to be naturally attracted to animals won’t want rights? (and yes, people like this do exist.)

What sort of rights are they asking for? Legalization of bestiality? Marriage between people and animals? Unless there is a massive cultural shift that involves the unweaving of much of the Western mindset, this will not happen.

I want to support gay rights, but In the back of my mind I feel the world is going to drive itself back to its animal instincts, instinct Jesus said we did not have to listen to, and that God was the alternative.

Human morality is a human animal instinct. It does not come from a god. It comes from our evolution. God is only an alternative if we decide he is.

With out an ultimate text, what will be our guide? trial and error?

There is nothing ultimate or objective about the god of the bible. Christians universally pick and choose which bits of scripture they find morally acceptable – something that they absolutely must do if modern society is to tolerate them. Their moral guidance is no more objective than any other.

It is obvious that God’s word was needed to guide people from completely destroying themselves 3,000 years ago, but in a possible secular modern society, what will lead us!

Except that “god’s word” is quite less than 2000 years old, and it promotes huge swaths of immoral behavior such as slavery, genocide, child abuse, and the subjugation of women. Have you actually read the bible? It’s not the ultimate shining guide of morality you seem to suppose it is. Humanity survived the past 3,000 years in spite of religion and superstition, not because of it!

We need no “ultimate” anything to decide what is moral. To assert that we can’t make moral decisions without an ultimate standard makes no more sense than to assert that we can’t tell what color a flower is unless we have an ultimate standard of each color. Our reason is perfectly capable of deciding what is best for our society.

Posted: October 21st 2010

See all questions answered by Mike the Infidel

What happens in private between two consenting adults is their business and no one else’s. This is the clear and obvious distinction between homosexuality and bestiality. Animals are not conscious and cannot consent. Bestiality is reprehensible and disgusting for the same reasons as raping the comatose.

Rather than blurring the line between right and wrong, allowing homosexuals their rights will only illuminate the foundations of liberty.

Posted: October 21st 2010

See all questions answered by George Locke

“Where will the secular/liberal extremist stop, and draw the line?” At the risk of repeating myself: when did “liberal” become an insult? I’m not American, but I see your Declaration of Independence contains the phrase “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. If you can pursue happiness without impinging on anyone else’s happiness, why should there be a problem?

Note that I’m not advocating a complete lack of morals, but I am inviting you to examine your morals and ask where they came from. To use your example of bestiality: can you think of practical, non-moralistic reasons why having sex with an animal would be a bad thing? I can think of at least one: disease. Add to that the fact that, well, I’m just not that into animals, that’s enough reason for me to not engage in bestiality. Note that I reached this conclusion without needing to rely on any prescribed morals at all: no-one has to tell me “bestiality is bad, m’kay?”

So, should I object to others doing it, or being homosexual? Why? What are the consequences of their actions? I can disapprove of something people do, while supporting their right to do it, provided it doesn’t impact me in any way. In plain English: I don’t mind what people do, as long as they aren’t doing it to me. In the case of bestiality, however, are there concerns about the rights of the animals? (I don’t know, and haven’t thought about it that much!) If so, they must be accounted for, because animals don’t make choices in the way we humans do. We can say no, but they can’t – not in as many words, anyway. Our rights do not imply rights over other people, animals, or the world in general.

So, what about homosexuality? I’m not in to guys, so that’s the end of my personal involvement. Why should I stop anyone else doing it? No animals are harmed, no pollution is caused, there isn’t even a risk of unwanted pregnancy, so the “pro-lifers” ought to be happy. Sometimes things we used to call “moral” coincide with what is right and effective, but if you’ve read the Bible – all of it – you’re aware of the danger in looking for moral guidance from that source.

Eating pork used to be a bad idea for valid health reasons, but it isn’t any more, so is it “immoral”? To a Muslim or a Jewish person, it still is. This homosexuality question is a chance for you to critically examine your morals and where they came from, place them in their valid contexts, and think in terms of actions and consequences. Not liking something is not sufficient reason to stop others from doing it. If people in the future want to engage in bestiality, and there are no animal rights issues or other consequences for anyone else, why should I stop them? I won’t have to do it, and I won’t have to watch.

Posted: October 21st 2010

See all questions answered by brian thomson

As knowledge progresses, so does society and their opinions. That is why, despite religious literature not changing, our collective/societal morality still does – because it comes from something outside religion. 1000 years ago, having slaves was something accepted throughout most of the world. And it is supported by scripture. Nowadays, we consider it a heinous thing, despite scripture not having changed.  Why did the world suddenly decide that we’ve been looking at scripture all wrong about slavery? Our minds changed about slavery, and then we changed our interpretation of religious texts to fit our new collective morality (same with stoning women, homosexuals, etc.) In essence, even if religious people don’t realize it – everyone’s morality actually comes from somewhere else – not religion, and we then scramble to change how we interpret our religion to fit with modern times so it isn’t cast away.

That being said, generally – at least in the West – we consider sexual acts between two consenting adults to be private, and therefore, no one’s business – not the state’s, and not the holy man’s.

A child cannot consent legally, that is why sex with a child is illegal. Sex with prisoners is also illegal, as they are captive and not consenting “freely”. Animals cannot consent either, because they are not self-aware – or people.

Legally, this would probably be part of the argument of why bestiality would remain illegal. Now, if (other) apes evolve in a million years to be able to speak and be self aware and indeed, consent to sexual acts, it probably won’t be considered bestiality anymore. :)

So, no, no one’s god is actually needed for anything – and most especially since no two people can agree on what god’s word actually is or means or “interprets” as, be thankful that human law – based on public debate, logic, reason, knowledge, and experience, trumps anyone else’s “gut feeling” as to what this or that religious passage may or may not mean.

Posted: October 21st 2010

See all questions answered by Leeta