“We kill, skin, and eat animals because we are above them intellectually and these acts reinforce that dominance over them. Sex, on the other hand, is generally considered to be an act between equals, so that allowing sex between humans and animals would in some way acknowledge them as the same.” Courtesy: “Heavy Petting” by Peter Singer.
Does a farmer make friends with his livestock?
Do you hang out with your dog at your local over the weekend?
Do you seek advice from your cat?
Is a medical caretaker allowed to take advantage of mentally handicapped patients and have sex with them?
Come on man, don’t feed me that bullshit. I agree with you on the pedophilia part (please note that I SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED BEASTIALITY AND NOT PEDOPHILIA in my comment up there. Please take a moment to fully digest the words I have put in caps.) but on the beastiality part it’s totally up for debate. You talk about human rights, what about animal rights? Just coz animals can’t say it, does it mean NONE of them is interested in having sex with a human? Is there CONCLUSIVE scientific research that proves animals are incapable of consenting to sex with humans? When a dog gets an erection and manages to have sex with a female human, could that be a sign of consent? Have we not heard of cases of baboons sexually harassing female humans? Does it mean if a female human willingly offered herself to the baboon, said baboon wouldn’t consent?
The fact is these are the same arguments you used when fighting for gay rights, and they’ll be used by others, whether you like it or not. If beastiality is unnatural to you, then gay sex is unnatural to someone else. Even among heterosexuals, there’re some activities that are deemed unnatural, like anal sex for example. Or having sex in a position other than missionary. So what yardstick do you use to measure what’s natural and what’s not?
Just a few years back in America, homosexuality was punishable by jail sentences, now if you don’t support it you’re deemed to be “stuck in the stone age”. So who’s to tell what’ll happen twenty years from now? Already, we have people in the developed world marrying their pets, including pets in their wills, even adopting them as children. What happens when these same people demand for these animals to be granted rights as humans, including sexual freedom? What if groundbreaking scientific research shows that animals are indeed capable of consenting to sex with humans? The fact of the matter is. the same arguments you used to get gay rights recognized can be used, twisted if need be, to push for recognition of any other “unnatural” sexual practices.
Don’t bet on it my friend. There was a time when MARRIAGE was only between a man and a woman. There was also a time when negroes were considered sub human. Tafakari hayo.
In the first place the stoey you have put up has been doing rounds for quite a while and is in all likelihood a hoax: http://www.snopes.com/info/news/vertasha.asp http://www.deonvsearth.com/mary-and-vertasha-hoax/
Beastiality is about a sexual fetish for sex with animals. Now how you can put homosexuality in the same league with animal sex is absurd. Homosexuality has no bearing on beastiality and neither does hetrosexuality. So it cant even be factored into this argument.
if you read the sites, the twitter accounts went live at about the same time the story went out. and the original source of the story, Stuppid.com is a well known fake news site, that regularly makes up stories and twitter accounts to boot.
Homosexuality is about a sexual fetish for sex with members of the same sex. Now how you can put heterosexuality in the same league with homosexuality is absurd. Heterosexuality has no bearing on homosexuality. So it cant even be factored into this argument.
You see what I did there? I played around with your words to make the case against homosexuality. It’s the same argument the “backward anti gay activists” have been using. How you fail to see it is honestly surprising to me. I told @ol monk that there was a time when black people were considered sub human, placed in the same category as animals. Assuming for a second that were still the case, would it be right for them to be denied the same rights as whites coz you consider their “mental capability to be inferior to that of white men”?
The point I’m trying to put across is that with the advancement of gay rights, other sexual minorities will seize on the opportunity to push their agenda. Whether we like it or not.
But you were so sure in your other arguments but here it’s become a grey area.
All I’m saying is that the consent argument is not the best stance to take when arguing human/animal rights.
Inter-species sex cannot be used as a baseline for a discussion on intra-species sex. and if sexual minorities try to push the agenda then they better have a better excuse to have sex with animals than" it is like any other sex because there is penetration". Mind you guys seem to think homosexuality is purely about the physical act of sex. Strip away the physical act of sex from homosexuality, heterosexuality and beastiality and see which remain the most similar.
https://cakagyaan.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/10846161_10152980234714578_129569571623916793_n.jpg Couldnt have said it any better… Kudos. Wacha watujibu. Sjui kwanini tunaweza ku uwa wanyama lakini tunakatazwa kuzimanga. If thats the logic then we should say it is okay to kill a child but wrong to screw the child and no one should be punished for killing a child via slaughtering. Thats hte same babaric thing we do to animals;slaughter them cold but we are told not to screw them?/??
