[bobeck]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

The reasons used to bash bestiality don't apply to homosexuality. Totally separate issues.

The only issues I've heard from you that bashes bestiality is consent in regards to rape (If its even possible to rape an animal) which I have already addressed. Further, I fail to comprehend why you don't understand that I am not saying homosexuality and bestiality are the same. Homosexuality and bestiality are separate and distinct acts yet can be justified by the same reasons.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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..... Any signal an animal gives can be interpreted in various ways..... An animal can't give consent.

So the person who argues that animals can't give consent then decides that an animal who rolls on its back wants to bet petted, but not have sex? I thought it was impossible for you to interpret the signals of animals.

Further, why then are we not charged with a battery every time a person pets a dog? After all, a battery is basically the touching of a person without consent. So, since a dog hasn't given explicit consent to be touched we shouldn't be able to pet it. (I am intentionally over looking the fact that one again battery this only applies to a person)

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Why are you applying laws made to affect humans on animals? For the last time, it's impossible to commit rape on an animal because by definition rape requires two (or more) human beings. Even your rudimentary definition of rape included the word "Someone''. If consent is a subset of rape, and Rape is now out of the picture in regards to animals, why are you continually hounding on the issue of consent?