Quote:
Originally Posted by Afrobean
Apart from religious reasons, gay couples raising children falls outside the social norms, so to maintain the status quo, same-sex relationships "should" be disallowed from having children.
|
Not sure if you're hashing your own argument or someone else's, but just because something isn't the status quo doesn't mean it's harmful. There's nothing saying, for example, that a child cannot be raised by a single parent, or his uncle, or his aunt, or anyone else for that matter -- so clearly the STRUCTURE of the family isn't against the law. Two men or two women would be just as acceptable. The whole "children need a mother and father" argument is total BS.
Kids who grow up with homosexual parents turn out no different than kids with heterosexual parents. What matters is love and stability -- not gender -- from parents. Plenty of heterosexual kids don't "turn gay" when they have gay parents, unlike what some people wonder about. I can think of far worse circumstances for a kid to grow up in that have nothing to do with the sexuality of their parents (things that actually have negative effects such as abuse/neglect/lack of education/poor finances/etc).
These are the things we need to worry about instead of quibbling over the obvious discrimination and fear that stems from pure ignorance and social stupidity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobeck
@Devonin. I am not and have not been saying that Homosexuality and Bestiality are identical. My point is to prove that the same reasons advocates use to make homosexuality right are also the same reasons that can be used to approve acts of bestiality and other morally reprehensible acts.
To the rest who are hung up over the issue of consent. If I'm correct, you are saying that the only moral issue separating acts of homosexuality from acts of bestiality is the issue of consent. So then putting consent aside, (just assume consent was not an issue) would you then approve of bestiality?
Remember that consent is much more a legal than a practical definition, and it's not unfeasible to create some type of consent laws in regards to animals, as consent is not limited to verbal communications. Consider the dog who rolls over when petted, would that not constitute consent?
And finally, for those accusers who show little knowledge by calling bestiality rape. It is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for bestiality to be classified as rape.
Consider the Californian statutory penal code SECTION 261-269. It starts with
"Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:" *feel free to view the rest http://davismaar.org/definition.htm
notice the requirement of a person, and most states have something similar to this effect. For this very same reason one who kills a cat can not legally be charged with a homicide even though a killing occurred, because a homicide MUST occur between a human being. |
If you're trolling, you're retarded.
If you're serious, you're also retarded.
The reasons used to bash bestiality don't apply to homosexuality. Totally separate issues. The only thing they have in common is that they grind against societal norms. You can't use the same argument against all things against the norm, especially regarding rape. Logic-fail on your behalf.
An animal that rolls over on its back may just want you to pet it. It doesn't mean it's giving you consent for sex. Besides, how is an animal going to let the authorities know it's been raped? An animal cannot speak, nor can it articulately communicate with a human -- it's on a completely different plane of understanding and communication. Any signal an animal gives can be interpreted in various ways. This isn't really even worthy of discussion. An animal can't give consent.
Rape is engaging in sexual activity with someone through force or under duress. Mental ability is one of the most important criteria for consent laws, because it determines who can give consent and who cannot. If you get rid of that so you can have sex with animals, you also get rid of the one thing that keeps minors or the mentally impaired from giving consent. This is also the reason why having sex with someone who's vastly intoxicated is considered rape -- they're not mentally capable of verbally giving/withholding consent much of the time.
Where it gets interesting though: Why allow murder of animals for food processing but not rape?